A habitual liar cannot be believed even when telling the truth.
There is a famous fable by ancient Greek storyteller Aesop about a shepherd boy who habitually lied for fun. While looking after a flock of sheep near a village, every now and then he would cry "Wolf! Wolf!" to bring the villagers rushing, just to laugh at them and their naivety. One day the wolf did actually attack his flock, and the shepherd boy cried "Wolf!! Wolf!"- this time for real.
But by then, the villagers had wisened up and ignored his cries. With no one coming to help, the boy could do nothing to stop the wolf feasting on his flock. Aesop concludes: "There is no believing a liar, even when he speaks the truth."
Thinking of this fable today, one cannot help but wonder: Did Iran attack the Japanese tanker Kokuka Courageous with limpet mines - as the United States claims it did on June 13? Does the video the US army produced indeed prove the accusation?
The US, Saudi Arabia, and the United Kingdom say it does, Iran says it does not, and others have expressed doubts. So, who is telling the truth? Iran or the US and its allies? And why does it matter?
The urgency of these questions is now a matter of war and peace, of life or death. After that accusation, the potential military confrontation between the US and Iran has increased exponentially. On June 20, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announced that it had shot down a US RQ-4A Global Hawk surveillance drone that it said had violated its airspace. US Central Command confirmed the drone was shot down by Iranian surface-to-air missiles but denied that it had violated Iranian airspace.
President Donald Trump called the downing of the drone a "big mistake", and then ordered a military attack on Iran only to reportedly change his mind and cancel it. There would have been approximately 150 Iranian casualties, Trump said, and that would have been "disproportionate".
As the US and Iran inch ever closer to a military confrontation, the question the world faces at large is who to trust, what to believe, where to place our critical judgement?
An average of 12 lies a day
As of June 10, by Washington Post's estimates, "President Trump has made 10,796 false or misleading claims over 869 days." That is probably a dictionary definition of a congenital liar. The newspaper further states: "The president crossed the 10,000 thresholds on April 26, and he has been averaging about 16 fishy claims a day since then. From the start of his presidency, he has averaged about 12 such claims a day."
In this context, it would be a mistake to judge the particulars of politics with the proverbial "Sunday School" sense of morality that is farthest removed from the abiding concerns of those who habitually lie. States, particularly the most powerful states, lie and these lies are for the best interests of the ruling elites in charge of those states.
From Vietnam to Iraq, the US has systematically and consistently lied to advance its own warmongering objectives. But the US is not the only state that lies habitually.
Right now, the interests of the US, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Israel all coalesce around targeting Iran and dismantling its share of regional power. Each one of these forces has its own internal reasons to wish Iran harm.
They, therefore, manufacture lies, exaggerate facts, take a smidgeon of truth and weave a long tale around it, all to turn Iran into a demon, the way they did with Iraq and Afghanistan in the past.
The US media is complicit in this charade. The Washington Post and the New York Times have stopped counting the lies Trump tells when it comes to the war with Iran.
The first casualty of war they say is the truth. That means all wars begin with a lie. Is the explosion of this Japanese tanker in the Gulf of Oman the lie that will result in yet another calamitous war in the region?
Today the fragile being of more than 80 million people is at the mercy of that piece of news for which John Bolton and Mike Pompeo have been gunning most of their political careers.
THE REGIME OF DECEPTION
The regime of deception now code-named "post-truth" or "alternative facts" is predicated on what the French philosopher Guy Debord called "the society of the spectacle", where an image has assumed a reality of its own and it no longer matters what it actually means.
We see a ship burning and we read the story that the US imperial narrative ascribes to it and its media regurgitates. What actually caused that fire and what proof there is for the claim are all entirely irrelevant questions.
Three sources tell us Iran did it: the US, Saudi Arabia, and the UK. They all might be what we think them to be - habitual liars - but they might still be telling the truth that Iran did actually blow a hole in that ship. The problem is, as wise Aesop points out, "there is no believing a liar, even when he speaks the truth."
Let us take them one at a time. The US launched a massive military attack against Iraq and wreaked havoc in the region, all based on a blatant lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction - a lie that the Bush administration staged and the New York Times consistently collaborated. Under the current administration that habitual tendency of states to lie has been exacerbated by a man who has a very casual relationship with the truth.
What about the UK? They also say the Iranians did it. They may very well be telling the truth. But we know for a fact that the British have a long colonial proclivity to tell lies to suit their interests. One such sustained course of lies was directed against democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh during the CIA-MI6 military coup of 1953 staged against him. The BBC was integral in spreading fake news at the time.
Well, that is the past, you might say, today the UK is certainly the paragon of truth and justice. Indeed it might be, except that it recently chose to turn its back on the truth: "The UK refuses to back UN inquiry into Saudi 'war crimes' amid fears it will damage trade Britain's Middle East and North Africa minister Alistair Burt argued that the Saudi-led coalition itself should investigate any atrocities it committed in its conflict against rebel forces in Yemen."
Can we really trust a treacherous regime that has an equally causal relationship with truth and can turn a blind eye to facts when it suits its purposes?
What about Saudi Arabia, which too has claimed Iranians did it. Certainly, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) could be a trustworthy source - except, he and his backers have repeatedly lied to the public in the face of facts about the tragic fate of slain Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The same Saudi prince - a favourite of New York Times columnists and President Trump's Zionist son-in-law - is chiefly responsible for a genocide in Yemen in which "85,000 children have died from starvation".
None of this is to exempt Iran from being part and parcel of the selfsame scene and engaging in its own game of lies. Despite the death toll in Syria surpassing half a million, it has continued to fabricate a story about supporting a "legitimate government", while Bashar al-Assad has continued in a sustained course of murderous mayhem. Indeed, the Iranian authorities may very well have planted that mine in the Japanese tanker.
The issue we face is not the guilt or innocence of any party involved, but, instead, the complete collapse of any moral authority standing on the side of truth.
Nietzsche famously said: "Truths are illusions of which we have forgotten that they are illusions, metaphors which have become worn by frequent use and have lost all sensuous vigour."
In the Gulf of Oman, the truth has dived into the lowest depths of the sea in search of new, more convincing, metaphors.
SOURCE: AL JAZEERA
Hamid Dabashi
Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts
Thursday, June 27, 2019
Monday, September 17, 2012
Iran confirms military stationed in Syria
Iran has confirmed for the first time that forces from its revolutionary guards corps are in Syria helping Assad's government crush the rebellion. It warned it would get involved militarily if its Arab ally came under attack.
In a clear public signal of Tehran's continuing support for President Bashar al-Assad, the commander of the Islamic republic's elite military formation said that "a number" of members of the IRGC's Qods force were in Syria, though General Mohammad Ali Jafari gave no further details and claimed this did not constitute "a military presence".
It was a surprisingly candid response to persistent claims by western countries, the Syrian opposition and Israel that Iran is actively helping the regime fight its enemies in the 18th month of a bloody war.
Lakhdar Brahimi, the veteran Algerian diplomat who replaced Kofi Annan as UN envoy to Syria earlier this month, met Assad in Damascus on Saturday but warned afterwards that any progress would be slow and halting given the yawning gap between government and opposition.
"The crisis is dangerous and getting worse and it is a threat to the Syrian people, the region and the world," said Brahimi.
Reports from Syria on Sunday described government forces fighting rebels amid shelling and sniper fire in Damascus and Aleppo, as well as in Homs and Deir ez-Zor. The Local Coordination Committees, an activist network, reported 103 dead.
Enmeshed in rivalries
Opposition activists reported 115 people killed on Saturday. According to the UN some 20 000 people have been killed. Opposition sources say the figure is closer to 30 000.
Jafari's admission underlines the way in which the Syrian uprising has become enmeshed in regional and international rivalries.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are arming Syrian rebel groups, while the US, Britain and France have called for Assad to go but are offering only limited and non-lethal backing to the armed opposition.
Russia and China have repeatedly blocked action against Syria at the UN.
The Qods force includes elements of special forces, intelligence-gathering and aid, and answers to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It has been accused of planning attacks inside Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Jafari said the IRGC was providing "intellectual and advisory help" to Syria.
British officials say the IRGC has provided riot control equipment and technical advice on how to crush dissent, for example on how to flood areas with security forces.
Intelligence-gathering
Iran is also providing support to improve the Syrian regime's intelligence-gathering capabilities and help to monitor protesters' use of the internet and mobile phone network, including text messaging.
Iran is said to have been dismayed at the heavy-handed way its long-standing Arab ally responded when the unrest began in March 2011, contrasting it with its relatively more sophisticated response to protests that followed its own disputed presidential election in 2009.
"If Syria came under military attack, Iran would also give military support but it ... totally depends on the circumstances," AFP reported Jafari as saying at rare press conference in Tehran.
The general also said the Strait of Hormuz, the channel at the mouth of the Gulf through which a third of the world's traded oil passes, would be a legitimate target for Iran should it be attacked.
"If war occurs in the region and the Islamic republic is involved, it is natural that the Strait of Hormuz as well as the energy [market] will face difficulties.
"The US has many vulnerabilities around Iran, and its bases are within the range of the guards' missiles. We have other capabilities as well, particularly when it comes to the support of Muslims for the Islamic republic," he said.
Tolerated
In Damascus, Brahimi also met Syrian opposition figures who are still tolerated by the regime.
"We told Mr Brahimi ... of our support for his efforts to resolve the crisis by ending the violence and killings, providing medical care and releasing political prisoners," said Hassan Abdel Azim, spokesperson for the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change.
But the head of the Free Syrian Army's military council in Aleppo, Colonel Abdel Jabar al-Oqaidi, predicted that the envoy's mission would fail, like Annan's, because he had nothing to offer people who were fighting for their freedom, al-Arabiya TV reported.
Syria's state news agency Sana quoted Assad as telling Brahimi that the success of his mission hinged on "pressuring countries which finance and train the terrorists, and which traffic weapons to Syria, to stop these actions".
In Istanbul, Tariq al-Hashimi, the fugitive Iraqi vice-president, said in interview that the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was failing to stop ammunitions and armaments reaching Syrian government forces.
"My country is unfortunately becoming an Iranian corridor to support the autocratic regime of Bashar al-Assad," he said. "There is no doubt about that."
Source: Mail & Guardian
In a clear public signal of Tehran's continuing support for President Bashar al-Assad, the commander of the Islamic republic's elite military formation said that "a number" of members of the IRGC's Qods force were in Syria, though General Mohammad Ali Jafari gave no further details and claimed this did not constitute "a military presence".
It was a surprisingly candid response to persistent claims by western countries, the Syrian opposition and Israel that Iran is actively helping the regime fight its enemies in the 18th month of a bloody war.
Lakhdar Brahimi, the veteran Algerian diplomat who replaced Kofi Annan as UN envoy to Syria earlier this month, met Assad in Damascus on Saturday but warned afterwards that any progress would be slow and halting given the yawning gap between government and opposition.
"The crisis is dangerous and getting worse and it is a threat to the Syrian people, the region and the world," said Brahimi.
Reports from Syria on Sunday described government forces fighting rebels amid shelling and sniper fire in Damascus and Aleppo, as well as in Homs and Deir ez-Zor. The Local Coordination Committees, an activist network, reported 103 dead.
Enmeshed in rivalries
Opposition activists reported 115 people killed on Saturday. According to the UN some 20 000 people have been killed. Opposition sources say the figure is closer to 30 000.
Jafari's admission underlines the way in which the Syrian uprising has become enmeshed in regional and international rivalries.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are arming Syrian rebel groups, while the US, Britain and France have called for Assad to go but are offering only limited and non-lethal backing to the armed opposition.
Russia and China have repeatedly blocked action against Syria at the UN.
The Qods force includes elements of special forces, intelligence-gathering and aid, and answers to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It has been accused of planning attacks inside Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Jafari said the IRGC was providing "intellectual and advisory help" to Syria.
British officials say the IRGC has provided riot control equipment and technical advice on how to crush dissent, for example on how to flood areas with security forces.
Intelligence-gathering
Iran is also providing support to improve the Syrian regime's intelligence-gathering capabilities and help to monitor protesters' use of the internet and mobile phone network, including text messaging.
Iran is said to have been dismayed at the heavy-handed way its long-standing Arab ally responded when the unrest began in March 2011, contrasting it with its relatively more sophisticated response to protests that followed its own disputed presidential election in 2009.
"If Syria came under military attack, Iran would also give military support but it ... totally depends on the circumstances," AFP reported Jafari as saying at rare press conference in Tehran.
The general also said the Strait of Hormuz, the channel at the mouth of the Gulf through which a third of the world's traded oil passes, would be a legitimate target for Iran should it be attacked.
"If war occurs in the region and the Islamic republic is involved, it is natural that the Strait of Hormuz as well as the energy [market] will face difficulties.
"The US has many vulnerabilities around Iran, and its bases are within the range of the guards' missiles. We have other capabilities as well, particularly when it comes to the support of Muslims for the Islamic republic," he said.
Tolerated
In Damascus, Brahimi also met Syrian opposition figures who are still tolerated by the regime.
"We told Mr Brahimi ... of our support for his efforts to resolve the crisis by ending the violence and killings, providing medical care and releasing political prisoners," said Hassan Abdel Azim, spokesperson for the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change.
But the head of the Free Syrian Army's military council in Aleppo, Colonel Abdel Jabar al-Oqaidi, predicted that the envoy's mission would fail, like Annan's, because he had nothing to offer people who were fighting for their freedom, al-Arabiya TV reported.
Syria's state news agency Sana quoted Assad as telling Brahimi that the success of his mission hinged on "pressuring countries which finance and train the terrorists, and which traffic weapons to Syria, to stop these actions".
In Istanbul, Tariq al-Hashimi, the fugitive Iraqi vice-president, said in interview that the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was failing to stop ammunitions and armaments reaching Syrian government forces.
"My country is unfortunately becoming an Iranian corridor to support the autocratic regime of Bashar al-Assad," he said. "There is no doubt about that."
Source: Mail & Guardian
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Mursi wants Egypt at centre of Arab affairs, urges end to Syrian government
Egypt's president on Wednesday promised to put Cairo back at the heart of Arab affairs and made an impassioned appeal to Arab states to work to end the bloodshed in Syria, saying the time had come to change the Syrian government. By Yasmine Saleh and Ayman Samir.
Mohamed Mursi, making his first presidential address to the Arab League in Cairo, told Arab foreign ministers that Egypt and its people would "return to occupy their natural place at the heart of the Arab nation". Mursi, elected in June after last year's popular uprising forced Hosni Mubarak from power after three decades, said the time had come in Syria for "change and not wasting time speaking of reform. This time has passed now. Now it is time for change".
"The Syrian regime must take into account the lessons of recent and ancient history," he said in the speech in which he also talked of the revolt in Egypt.
Mursi also said a quartet of states - Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey and Egypt - would meet to discuss the Syrian crisis.
"The quartet which Egypt has called for will meet now," he said, without giving details.
An Egyptian delegate said the president's comments meant the four states were talking about what action could be taken but the formal formation of the quartet was still under discussion. He said no date had been set for its representatives to meet.
Tehran has backed Syria's government but the three other states want President Bashar al-Assad to stand down.
Analysts said the group was unlikely to agree on how to handle the crisis but said the initiative was a sign of how determined the newly elected president was to put Egypt back at the centre of regional politics.
FRESH APPEAL
As Mursi was leaving the podium, the Islamist president briefly returned to the microphone to say: "Syria, Syria, this is the arena to do something", pointing to the ministers below him, and then again saying "Syria" before stepping away.
It was the second such appeal for action in a week by Mursi. At the Non-Aligned Movement Summit in Iran on Aug. 30, Mursi referred to Tehran's ally as an "oppressive regime" and said it was an "ethical duty" to back rebels.
More than 20,000 people have been killed in Syria since initially peaceful protests against Assad erupted in March 2011. Tens of thousands more have fled across its borders to neighbouring states to escape the violence. Nasser al-Kidwa, deputy to Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations-Arab League mediator on Syria, arrived in Cairo on Wednesday to join the talks with Arab ministers. Brahimi, who is expected to visit Cairo on Sunday, has described his bid to broker peace as "nearly impossible" but Kidwa told reporters at Cairo airport that "we have not lost hope" despite the difficulties facing the mission.
According to a draft of the resolutions obtained by Reuters and approved on Wednesday, ministers called on the Arab League chief and its special committee on Syria to follow up with the U.N. secretary-general to outline a "new vision" for Brahimi.
The draft also called for Nilesat and Arabsat, two regionally owned satellite firms, to stop broadcasts of Syrian state and private channels. Broadcasts of the three Syrian channels on Nilesat stopped before the draft was approved, with a Nilesat source citing unspecified contract violations.
Abdelbasset Sida, head of the Syrian National Council (SNC) opposition alliance, told Reuters he was disappointed by the resolutions, saying Arabs should work more closely with Europeans opposed to Assad's rule and put more presure on Syria's ally Russia.
He said Arabs should back "using all means including force against the Syrian regime to reach that end". DM
Source: Daily Maverick
Mohamed Mursi, making his first presidential address to the Arab League in Cairo, told Arab foreign ministers that Egypt and its people would "return to occupy their natural place at the heart of the Arab nation". Mursi, elected in June after last year's popular uprising forced Hosni Mubarak from power after three decades, said the time had come in Syria for "change and not wasting time speaking of reform. This time has passed now. Now it is time for change".
"The Syrian regime must take into account the lessons of recent and ancient history," he said in the speech in which he also talked of the revolt in Egypt.
Mursi also said a quartet of states - Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey and Egypt - would meet to discuss the Syrian crisis.
"The quartet which Egypt has called for will meet now," he said, without giving details.
An Egyptian delegate said the president's comments meant the four states were talking about what action could be taken but the formal formation of the quartet was still under discussion. He said no date had been set for its representatives to meet.
Tehran has backed Syria's government but the three other states want President Bashar al-Assad to stand down.
Analysts said the group was unlikely to agree on how to handle the crisis but said the initiative was a sign of how determined the newly elected president was to put Egypt back at the centre of regional politics.
FRESH APPEAL
As Mursi was leaving the podium, the Islamist president briefly returned to the microphone to say: "Syria, Syria, this is the arena to do something", pointing to the ministers below him, and then again saying "Syria" before stepping away.
It was the second such appeal for action in a week by Mursi. At the Non-Aligned Movement Summit in Iran on Aug. 30, Mursi referred to Tehran's ally as an "oppressive regime" and said it was an "ethical duty" to back rebels.
More than 20,000 people have been killed in Syria since initially peaceful protests against Assad erupted in March 2011. Tens of thousands more have fled across its borders to neighbouring states to escape the violence. Nasser al-Kidwa, deputy to Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations-Arab League mediator on Syria, arrived in Cairo on Wednesday to join the talks with Arab ministers. Brahimi, who is expected to visit Cairo on Sunday, has described his bid to broker peace as "nearly impossible" but Kidwa told reporters at Cairo airport that "we have not lost hope" despite the difficulties facing the mission.
According to a draft of the resolutions obtained by Reuters and approved on Wednesday, ministers called on the Arab League chief and its special committee on Syria to follow up with the U.N. secretary-general to outline a "new vision" for Brahimi.
The draft also called for Nilesat and Arabsat, two regionally owned satellite firms, to stop broadcasts of Syrian state and private channels. Broadcasts of the three Syrian channels on Nilesat stopped before the draft was approved, with a Nilesat source citing unspecified contract violations.
Abdelbasset Sida, head of the Syrian National Council (SNC) opposition alliance, told Reuters he was disappointed by the resolutions, saying Arabs should work more closely with Europeans opposed to Assad's rule and put more presure on Syria's ally Russia.
He said Arabs should back "using all means including force against the Syrian regime to reach that end". DM
Source: Daily Maverick
Friday, August 31, 2012
What next for SA-Israel relations?
By Howard Sackstein
This week the South African ambassador to Israel was summoned by his hosts for a severe reprimand. Our government’s increasingly aggressive stance on Israel has caused relations between Jerusalem and Pretoria to implode.
One by one we have watched our despotic friends in the Middle East tumble from power and we watch silently as tens of thousands of Syrians die at the hands of Bashar al-Assad and that country spirals towards civil war.
At the end of August SA will attend a Non-Aligned Movement summit in Tehran, seat of one of the most oppressive theocracies of the modern era. Oil and political donations triumph over policy!
Despite our manifest indifference to human suffering, Israel features prominently in our foreign policy.
When Israel stopped a Turkish flotilla from illegally breaking the blockade on Gaza, South Africa, Nicaragua and Ecuador were the only countries, other than Turkey, to withdraw their ambassadors from Tel Aviv.
In March South Africa granted entry to renowned Hamas terrorist Abdul Aziz Umar to visit. Umar was given seven life sentences for taking part in the Café Hillel suicide bombing attack in Jerusalem, which killed seven people. Hamas denies Israel’s right to exist and calls for the expulsion of Jews from the Middle East. Ironically, Umar was dispatched to South Africa to promote Israel Apartheid Week.
On August 22, cabinet approved a plan promoted by pro-Palestinian advocates “to require traders in South Africa not to incorrectly label products that originate from the Occupied Palestinian Territory as products of Israel”. Minister of Trade and Industry Rob Davies denied the move was politically motivated. But he was soon contradicted by the deputy minister of international relations, Marius Fransman, who said “economic diplomacy could be one of the most effective weapons of change in the Palestinian situation. I am glad to inform you that our government released a government notice, as a strategy to apply economic pressure on Israel”.
So sympathetic has South Africa become to the anti-Israel cause, that terrorists last month plotted a foiled attack on Israeli targets in South Africa.
When a group of South African Jewish organisations and business leaders attempted to address the poor service-delivery record of our government by training South Africans in Israel, Deputy Minister of International Relations Ebrahim Ebrahim applied pressure to scupper the trips.
Over the past 60 years Israel has been training people throughout the continent. Under the leadership of the Israeli trade union movement black South African civic leaders, trade unionists and NGOs have been trained in Israel since the 1970s. Yehuda Paz was banned by the apartheid government from entering South Africa. Today a post-apartheid government attempts to ban South Africans from travelling to Israel to meet Paz.
Last week Ebrahim informed South Africans that Pretoria discourages all South Africans from visiting Israel. He said “because of the treatment and policies of Israel towards the Palestinian people, we strongly discourage South Africans from going there”.
Probably the most scathing criticism of the deputy minister came from the chief rabbi of South Africa, Dr Warren Goldstein, who described the deputy minister as unfit to hold public office and demanded he resign. Goldstein said: “Your actions hark back to apartheid-style control of information and censorship. For the sake of peace and justice, we need more information, not less; we need more dialogue, not less; we need more connections with other societies, not less.”
Officials in Ebrahim’s own department told the City Press that Ebrahim was old and sometimes did not understand policy.
Israel has little to gain from its contributions to South Africa. In the mind of Israel, South Africa is underdeveloped, battling with corruption, spiralling unemployment, chronic under-education and crippling service delivery.
South Africans must worry that Israel may take action to restrict its technology from being used in South Africa. Many farmers in rural South Africa have moved from subsistence farming to commercial farming based entirely on Israeli know-how and technology.
South Africa’s bona fides have been further dented by the MTN-Turkcell court case in the US. Turkcell alleges that South Africa protected Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency in return for awarding a cellular licence to MTN. Assisting Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, not only destabilises the entire Middle East, but puts South Africa on a collision path.
South Africa has abandoned its desire to play any meaningful role in Middle East peace. Its failure to take any moral stand on international conflicts other than Israel/Palestine has undermined its own credibility. Its pronouncements are mere platitudes to gain domestic Muslim votes in the Western Cape and while service-delivery protests spread across the country fewer and fewer South African government officials will receive the training in Israel they desperately need.
Howard Sackstein has a degree in law and international relations, a post-graduate law degree and a masters in political advocacy and international conflict resolution. He was one of the founders of the Jewish anti-apartheid movement in South Africa and was executive director of South Africa’s Independent Electoral Commission. He led the only ANC delegation to ever visit Israel and took Nelson Mandela to Brussels on behalf of the World Jewish Congress.
Source: Mail & Guardian
This week the South African ambassador to Israel was summoned by his hosts for a severe reprimand. Our government’s increasingly aggressive stance on Israel has caused relations between Jerusalem and Pretoria to implode.
One by one we have watched our despotic friends in the Middle East tumble from power and we watch silently as tens of thousands of Syrians die at the hands of Bashar al-Assad and that country spirals towards civil war.
At the end of August SA will attend a Non-Aligned Movement summit in Tehran, seat of one of the most oppressive theocracies of the modern era. Oil and political donations triumph over policy!
Despite our manifest indifference to human suffering, Israel features prominently in our foreign policy.
When Israel stopped a Turkish flotilla from illegally breaking the blockade on Gaza, South Africa, Nicaragua and Ecuador were the only countries, other than Turkey, to withdraw their ambassadors from Tel Aviv.
In March South Africa granted entry to renowned Hamas terrorist Abdul Aziz Umar to visit. Umar was given seven life sentences for taking part in the Café Hillel suicide bombing attack in Jerusalem, which killed seven people. Hamas denies Israel’s right to exist and calls for the expulsion of Jews from the Middle East. Ironically, Umar was dispatched to South Africa to promote Israel Apartheid Week.
On August 22, cabinet approved a plan promoted by pro-Palestinian advocates “to require traders in South Africa not to incorrectly label products that originate from the Occupied Palestinian Territory as products of Israel”. Minister of Trade and Industry Rob Davies denied the move was politically motivated. But he was soon contradicted by the deputy minister of international relations, Marius Fransman, who said “economic diplomacy could be one of the most effective weapons of change in the Palestinian situation. I am glad to inform you that our government released a government notice, as a strategy to apply economic pressure on Israel”.
So sympathetic has South Africa become to the anti-Israel cause, that terrorists last month plotted a foiled attack on Israeli targets in South Africa.
When a group of South African Jewish organisations and business leaders attempted to address the poor service-delivery record of our government by training South Africans in Israel, Deputy Minister of International Relations Ebrahim Ebrahim applied pressure to scupper the trips.
Over the past 60 years Israel has been training people throughout the continent. Under the leadership of the Israeli trade union movement black South African civic leaders, trade unionists and NGOs have been trained in Israel since the 1970s. Yehuda Paz was banned by the apartheid government from entering South Africa. Today a post-apartheid government attempts to ban South Africans from travelling to Israel to meet Paz.
Last week Ebrahim informed South Africans that Pretoria discourages all South Africans from visiting Israel. He said “because of the treatment and policies of Israel towards the Palestinian people, we strongly discourage South Africans from going there”.
Probably the most scathing criticism of the deputy minister came from the chief rabbi of South Africa, Dr Warren Goldstein, who described the deputy minister as unfit to hold public office and demanded he resign. Goldstein said: “Your actions hark back to apartheid-style control of information and censorship. For the sake of peace and justice, we need more information, not less; we need more dialogue, not less; we need more connections with other societies, not less.”
Officials in Ebrahim’s own department told the City Press that Ebrahim was old and sometimes did not understand policy.
Israel has little to gain from its contributions to South Africa. In the mind of Israel, South Africa is underdeveloped, battling with corruption, spiralling unemployment, chronic under-education and crippling service delivery.
South Africans must worry that Israel may take action to restrict its technology from being used in South Africa. Many farmers in rural South Africa have moved from subsistence farming to commercial farming based entirely on Israeli know-how and technology.
South Africa’s bona fides have been further dented by the MTN-Turkcell court case in the US. Turkcell alleges that South Africa protected Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency in return for awarding a cellular licence to MTN. Assisting Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, not only destabilises the entire Middle East, but puts South Africa on a collision path.
South Africa has abandoned its desire to play any meaningful role in Middle East peace. Its failure to take any moral stand on international conflicts other than Israel/Palestine has undermined its own credibility. Its pronouncements are mere platitudes to gain domestic Muslim votes in the Western Cape and while service-delivery protests spread across the country fewer and fewer South African government officials will receive the training in Israel they desperately need.
Howard Sackstein has a degree in law and international relations, a post-graduate law degree and a masters in political advocacy and international conflict resolution. He was one of the founders of the Jewish anti-apartheid movement in South Africa and was executive director of South Africa’s Independent Electoral Commission. He led the only ANC delegation to ever visit Israel and took Nelson Mandela to Brussels on behalf of the World Jewish Congress.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Analysis: Syria - three wars for the price of one
If you think the war in Syria is hard to follow, that’s because there’s
actually three of them—at least. Distinct but interconnected, the
competing web of allegiances and motivations puts al-Qaeda on the same
side as the USA and makes a solution impossible. By SIMON ALLISON.
Many people, like this reporter, find the Syrian war confusing sometimes. It throws up all kind of strange and unnatural contradictions, like America appearing to be on the same side as al-Qaeda-linked jihadists and Al-Jazeera turning into a typical, propaganda-spouting state media house. No doubt policy-makers also find it difficult to understand. It’s been nearly two years and there’s still no sensible international policy on Syria, just a steady stream of ad-hoc condemnations and hamstrung mediations.
There’s a simple reason for all this confusion and complexity: it’s a very, very complicated situation. Even worse, there’s not just one war being fought in Syria, but at least three and possibly even more.
War number one is the one we’re all familiar with (especially if we’ve been watching too much Al-Jazeera). This is your typical Arab Spring narrative, pitting a downtrodden civilian population against the brutal regime that has repressed its people for so long. It’s a simple tale of good-versus-evil, of democracy taking on dictatorship, of the people sticking it to the man. We’ve seen variations of the theme in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, all of which ended with the people hurling off the yoke of dictatorship and replacing it with a new, enlightened, freely-elected government (oh, wait; it hasn’t quite ended like that in any of these countries, but let’s not spoil a good story with the facts).
Elements of this story are true in Syria. Certainly, the regime was brutal and autocratic, happy to stifle political freedoms and concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a very few, mostly of the Alawite ethnic minority. In fact, the Syrian security forces had such a world-class reputation for torture that they were, on occasion, prevailed upon by American intelligence to practise their craft on detainees as part America’s extraordinary rendition program.
There was popular dissent, too. Not much of it initially, but it grew in size and voice in the wake of the uprisings in other Arab countries. Whether or not the anti-Assad movement was really a majority will be argued over endlessly in years to come, but it is important to recognise that just as there was a large anti-Assad sentiment, so there was a significant chunk of the population that was happy with the status quo; autocracies are stable and peaceful, after all, unlike revolutions and civil wars.
War number two is not really about Syria at all. Instead, it’s about Middle Eastern and global geopolitics, and it’s very messy. In one corner is the Syrian Alawite regime and Iran, who are natural allies. The Alawites are a sect of Shi’a Islam, while Iran is an explicitly Shi’a state (as opposed to Sunni Islam, the other main branch of the religion). Russia finds itself in this camp too, desperate to protect its vital naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus—its only reliable warm water port. So too does China, which sees no reason to put its excellent trading relationship with Syria in jeopardy.
Ranged against this formidable combination is a regional alliance of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, all of which would love to see Bashar al-Assad replaced with a more compliant Sunni leader. All have designs on regional leadership, and in Syria they find common cause. Turkey was one of the first countries to express support for the Syrian rebels, while both Qatar and Saudi Arabia have helped to fund and arm them. Qatar has also been accused – with some justification – of using its hugely influential satellite TV channel, Al-Jazeera (specifically the Arabic version) to influence public opinion by portraying a one-sided version of events.
Lurking behind this regional triumvirate is the United States and the Western world, their foreign policy distorted, as usual, by their Iranian paranoia. Robert Fisk, doyen of Middle East correspondents, summed up their approach in the Independent: “This is an attempt to crush the Syrian dictatorship not because of our love for Syrians or our hatred of our former friend Bashar al-Assad, or because of our outrage at Russia, whose place in the pantheon of hypocrites is clear when we watch its reaction to all the little Stalingrads across Syria. No, this is all about Iran and our desire to crush the Islamic Republic and its infernal nuclear plans—if they exist—and has nothing to do with human rights or the right to life or the death of Syrian babies.”
Syria, in other words, is a proxy war; a relatively safe place (for everyone else, not for Syria) to fight the battles that can’t yet be fought in the open.
But it doesn’t end there. There’s a third war happening. This one pits the nominally Shi’a (though relatively secular) Syrian state against the global Sunni jihadist movement (known to Americans as “terrorists”). A flood of reports recently have explained how fighters from all over the Arab world, many of them battle-hardened in Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq, have come to the support of the Syrian rebels.
This from Ed Husain in the National Review is typical: “Our collective excitement at the possibility that the Assad regime will be destroyed, and the Iranian ayatollahs weakened in the process, is blurring our vision and preventing us from seeing the rise of al-Qaeda in Syria. In March of this year, jihadis mounted seven attacks against Assad. By June, they had led 66 “operations”, and over half of these were on Syria’s capital, Damascus. The Syrian opposition is benefiting hugely from the terrorist organization’s determination, discipline, combat experience, religious fervour, and ability to strike the Assad regime where it hurts most.”
The War on Terror has reached Syria and somehow, America and al-Qaeda find themselves fighting on the same side. No wonder no one seems to know what’s really going on.
Nor does anyone know how to stop it. With all these tangled conflicts and competing interests and motivations, figuring out a solution seems like an impossible task. Which, so far, is exactly what it’s proven to be. DM
Source: Daily Maverick
Many people, like this reporter, find the Syrian war confusing sometimes. It throws up all kind of strange and unnatural contradictions, like America appearing to be on the same side as al-Qaeda-linked jihadists and Al-Jazeera turning into a typical, propaganda-spouting state media house. No doubt policy-makers also find it difficult to understand. It’s been nearly two years and there’s still no sensible international policy on Syria, just a steady stream of ad-hoc condemnations and hamstrung mediations.
There’s a simple reason for all this confusion and complexity: it’s a very, very complicated situation. Even worse, there’s not just one war being fought in Syria, but at least three and possibly even more.
War number one is the one we’re all familiar with (especially if we’ve been watching too much Al-Jazeera). This is your typical Arab Spring narrative, pitting a downtrodden civilian population against the brutal regime that has repressed its people for so long. It’s a simple tale of good-versus-evil, of democracy taking on dictatorship, of the people sticking it to the man. We’ve seen variations of the theme in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, all of which ended with the people hurling off the yoke of dictatorship and replacing it with a new, enlightened, freely-elected government (oh, wait; it hasn’t quite ended like that in any of these countries, but let’s not spoil a good story with the facts).
Elements of this story are true in Syria. Certainly, the regime was brutal and autocratic, happy to stifle political freedoms and concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a very few, mostly of the Alawite ethnic minority. In fact, the Syrian security forces had such a world-class reputation for torture that they were, on occasion, prevailed upon by American intelligence to practise their craft on detainees as part America’s extraordinary rendition program.
There was popular dissent, too. Not much of it initially, but it grew in size and voice in the wake of the uprisings in other Arab countries. Whether or not the anti-Assad movement was really a majority will be argued over endlessly in years to come, but it is important to recognise that just as there was a large anti-Assad sentiment, so there was a significant chunk of the population that was happy with the status quo; autocracies are stable and peaceful, after all, unlike revolutions and civil wars.
War number two is not really about Syria at all. Instead, it’s about Middle Eastern and global geopolitics, and it’s very messy. In one corner is the Syrian Alawite regime and Iran, who are natural allies. The Alawites are a sect of Shi’a Islam, while Iran is an explicitly Shi’a state (as opposed to Sunni Islam, the other main branch of the religion). Russia finds itself in this camp too, desperate to protect its vital naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus—its only reliable warm water port. So too does China, which sees no reason to put its excellent trading relationship with Syria in jeopardy.
Ranged against this formidable combination is a regional alliance of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, all of which would love to see Bashar al-Assad replaced with a more compliant Sunni leader. All have designs on regional leadership, and in Syria they find common cause. Turkey was one of the first countries to express support for the Syrian rebels, while both Qatar and Saudi Arabia have helped to fund and arm them. Qatar has also been accused – with some justification – of using its hugely influential satellite TV channel, Al-Jazeera (specifically the Arabic version) to influence public opinion by portraying a one-sided version of events.
Lurking behind this regional triumvirate is the United States and the Western world, their foreign policy distorted, as usual, by their Iranian paranoia. Robert Fisk, doyen of Middle East correspondents, summed up their approach in the Independent: “This is an attempt to crush the Syrian dictatorship not because of our love for Syrians or our hatred of our former friend Bashar al-Assad, or because of our outrage at Russia, whose place in the pantheon of hypocrites is clear when we watch its reaction to all the little Stalingrads across Syria. No, this is all about Iran and our desire to crush the Islamic Republic and its infernal nuclear plans—if they exist—and has nothing to do with human rights or the right to life or the death of Syrian babies.”
Syria, in other words, is a proxy war; a relatively safe place (for everyone else, not for Syria) to fight the battles that can’t yet be fought in the open.
But it doesn’t end there. There’s a third war happening. This one pits the nominally Shi’a (though relatively secular) Syrian state against the global Sunni jihadist movement (known to Americans as “terrorists”). A flood of reports recently have explained how fighters from all over the Arab world, many of them battle-hardened in Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq, have come to the support of the Syrian rebels.
This from Ed Husain in the National Review is typical: “Our collective excitement at the possibility that the Assad regime will be destroyed, and the Iranian ayatollahs weakened in the process, is blurring our vision and preventing us from seeing the rise of al-Qaeda in Syria. In March of this year, jihadis mounted seven attacks against Assad. By June, they had led 66 “operations”, and over half of these were on Syria’s capital, Damascus. The Syrian opposition is benefiting hugely from the terrorist organization’s determination, discipline, combat experience, religious fervour, and ability to strike the Assad regime where it hurts most.”
The War on Terror has reached Syria and somehow, America and al-Qaeda find themselves fighting on the same side. No wonder no one seems to know what’s really going on.
Nor does anyone know how to stop it. With all these tangled conflicts and competing interests and motivations, figuring out a solution seems like an impossible task. Which, so far, is exactly what it’s proven to be. DM
Source: Daily Maverick
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Syria conflict: 'Scores of bodies found' near Damascus
Syrian opposition activists say scores of bodies have been found in a town near the capital Damascus, accusing government troops of "massacre". The activists say many of the victims in the town of Daraya had been "summarily executed". One unconfirmed report said more than 200 bodies were discovered in houses and basement shelters. Without commenting on the activists' claim, Syrian state TV said Daraya was being "purified of terrorist remnants".
'House-to-house' raids
The forces of President Bashar al-Assad launched an assault on the town on Saturday, after days of heavy bombardment. Activists on the ground later posted video footage on the internet, which apparently showed numerous bodies in the Abu Auleiman al-Darani mosque. The activists say that many of the victims had gunshot wounds to the head and chest and were killed during house-to-house raids by government troops. "Assad's army has committed a massacre in Daraya," an opposition member in Deraa told Reuters. The activist added that most of the victims had been killed from close range, and some died from sniper fire.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based opposition activist group, had earlier put the number of dead in Deraa at more than 120 for this week alone. The claims by the activists have not been independently verified because of restrictions placed on on foreign media across Syria.
Failed ceasefire
In a separate development, the head of the UN mission to Syria left the country after the mission had been wound up. Senegalese Lt Gen Babacar Gaye joined a UN convoy to Lebanon on Saturday. Last week, the UN decided against extending the mission, which was originally part of a six-point peace plan for Syria. However, the ceasefire mandated by the plan never took hold and rising violence forced the UN monitors to be confined to their hotels since June.
Source: BBC News
'House-to-house' raids
The forces of President Bashar al-Assad launched an assault on the town on Saturday, after days of heavy bombardment. Activists on the ground later posted video footage on the internet, which apparently showed numerous bodies in the Abu Auleiman al-Darani mosque. The activists say that many of the victims had gunshot wounds to the head and chest and were killed during house-to-house raids by government troops. "Assad's army has committed a massacre in Daraya," an opposition member in Deraa told Reuters. The activist added that most of the victims had been killed from close range, and some died from sniper fire.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based opposition activist group, had earlier put the number of dead in Deraa at more than 120 for this week alone. The claims by the activists have not been independently verified because of restrictions placed on on foreign media across Syria.
Failed ceasefire
In a separate development, the head of the UN mission to Syria left the country after the mission had been wound up. Senegalese Lt Gen Babacar Gaye joined a UN convoy to Lebanon on Saturday. Last week, the UN decided against extending the mission, which was originally part of a six-point peace plan for Syria. However, the ceasefire mandated by the plan never took hold and rising violence forced the UN monitors to be confined to their hotels since June.
Source: BBC News
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Land of Israel
The notion of the "Land of Israel", known in Hebrew as Eretz Yisrael (or Eretz Yisroel), has been important and sacred to the Jewish people since Biblical times. According to the Torah, God promised the land to the three Patriarchs of the Jewish people.[33][34] On the basis of scripture, the period of the three Patriarchs has been placed somewhere in the early 2nd millennium BCE,[35] and the first Kingdom of Israel was established around the 11th century BCE. Subsequent Israelite kingdoms and states ruled intermittently over the next four hundred years, and are known from various extra-biblical sources.[36][37][38][39]
In 635 CE, the region, including Jerusalem, was conquered by the Arabs and was to remain under Muslim control for the next 1300 years.[44] Control of the region transferred between the Umayyads,[44] Abbasids,[44] and Crusaders throughout the next six centuries,[44] before being conquered by the Mamluk Sultanate, in 1260.[45] In 1516, the region was conquered by the Ottoman Empire, and remained under Turkish rule until the 20th century.[45]
The State of Israel, is a parliamentary republic in the Middle East, along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. It borders Lebanon in the north, Syria in the northeast, Jordan and the West Bank in the east, Egypt and the Gaza Strip on the southwest, and the Gulf of Aqaba in the Red Sea to the south, and it contains geographically diverse features within its relatively small area.[1][6] Israel is defined as a Jewish and Democratic State in its Basic Laws and is the world's only Jewish-majority state.[7]
Following the adoption of a resolution by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 29 November 1947, recommending the adoption and implementation of the United Nations partition plan of Mandatory Palestine, on 14 May 1948 David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the World Zionist Organization[8] and president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel, a state independent upon the termination of the British Mandate for Palestine, 15th May, 1948.[9][10][11] Neighboring Arab states invaded the next day in support of the Palestinian Arabs. Israel has since fought several wars with neighboring Arab states,[12] in the course of which it has occupied the West Bank, Sinai Peninsula (between 1967-1982), Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. Portions of these territories, including east Jerusalem, have been annexed by Israel, but the border with the neighboring West Bank has not yet been permanently defined.[neutrality is disputed][13][14][15][16][17] Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, but efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have so far not resulted in peace.
Israel's financial centre is Tel Aviv,[18] while Jerusalem is the country's most populous city and its capital (although not recognized internationally as such). The population of Israel, as defined by the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, was estimated in 2012 to be 7,900,600 people, of whom 5,955,200 are Jewish. Arabs form the country's second-largest ethnic group with 1,627,900 people.[3] The great majority of Israeli Arabs are settled-Muslims, with smaller but significant numbers of semi-settled Negev Bedouins and Arab Christians. Other minorities include various ethnic and ethno-religious denominations such as Druze, Circassians, Black Hebrew Israelites,[19] Samaritans, Maronites and others.
Israel is a representative democracy with a parliamentary system, proportional representation and universal suffrage.[20][21] The Prime Minister serves as head of government and the Knesset serves as Israel's unicameral legislative body. Israel has one of the highest life expectancies in the world.[22] It is a developed country, an OECD member,[23] and its economy, based on the nominal gross domestic product, was the 40th-largest in the world in 2011.[24] Israel has the highest standard of living in the Middle East.[25]
Upon independence in 1948, the new Jewish state was formally named Medinat Yisrael, or the State of Israel, after other proposed historical and religious names including Eretz Israel ("the Land of Israel"), Zion, and Judea, were considered and rejected.[26] In the early weeks of independence, the government chose the term "Israeli" to denote a citizen of Israel, with the formal announcement made by Minister of Foreign Affairs Moshe Sharett.[27]
The name Israel has historically been used, in common and religious usage, to refer to the biblical Kingdom of Israel or the entire Jewish nation.[28] According to the Hebrew Bible the name "Israel" was given to the patriarch Jacob (Standard Yisraʾel, Isrāʾīl; Septuagint Greek: Ἰσραήλ Israēl; "struggle with God"[29]) after he successfully wrestled with the angel of the Lord.[30] Jacob's twelve sons became the ancestors of the Israelites, also known as the Twelve Tribes of Israel or Children of Israel. Jacob and his sons had lived in Canaan but were forced by famine to go into Egypt for four generations until Moses, a great-great grandson of Jacob,[31] led the Israelites back into Canaan in the "Exodus". The earliest archaeological artifact to mention the word "Israel" is the Merneptah Stele of ancient Egypt (dated to the late 13th century BCE).[32]
The area is also known as the Holy Land, being holy for all Abrahamic religions including Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Bahá'í Faith. Prior to the 1948 Israeli Declaration of Independence, the whole region was known by various other names including Southern Syria, Syria Palestina, Kingdom of Jerusalem, Iudaea Province, Coele-Syria, Retjenu, Canaan and, particularly, Palestine.
The Bank of Israel was ranked first among central banks for its efficient functioning, up from the 8th place in 2009. Israel was also ranked as the worldwide leader in its supply of skilled manpower.[278] The Bank of Israel holds $78 billion of foreign-exchange reserves.[279]
Source: Wikipedia
In 635 CE, the region, including Jerusalem, was conquered by the Arabs and was to remain under Muslim control for the next 1300 years.[44] Control of the region transferred between the Umayyads,[44] Abbasids,[44] and Crusaders throughout the next six centuries,[44] before being conquered by the Mamluk Sultanate, in 1260.[45] In 1516, the region was conquered by the Ottoman Empire, and remained under Turkish rule until the 20th century.[45]
The State of Israel, is a parliamentary republic in the Middle East, along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. It borders Lebanon in the north, Syria in the northeast, Jordan and the West Bank in the east, Egypt and the Gaza Strip on the southwest, and the Gulf of Aqaba in the Red Sea to the south, and it contains geographically diverse features within its relatively small area.[1][6] Israel is defined as a Jewish and Democratic State in its Basic Laws and is the world's only Jewish-majority state.[7]
Following the adoption of a resolution by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 29 November 1947, recommending the adoption and implementation of the United Nations partition plan of Mandatory Palestine, on 14 May 1948 David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the World Zionist Organization[8] and president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel, a state independent upon the termination of the British Mandate for Palestine, 15th May, 1948.[9][10][11] Neighboring Arab states invaded the next day in support of the Palestinian Arabs. Israel has since fought several wars with neighboring Arab states,[12] in the course of which it has occupied the West Bank, Sinai Peninsula (between 1967-1982), Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. Portions of these territories, including east Jerusalem, have been annexed by Israel, but the border with the neighboring West Bank has not yet been permanently defined.[neutrality is disputed][13][14][15][16][17] Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, but efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have so far not resulted in peace.
Israel's financial centre is Tel Aviv,[18] while Jerusalem is the country's most populous city and its capital (although not recognized internationally as such). The population of Israel, as defined by the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, was estimated in 2012 to be 7,900,600 people, of whom 5,955,200 are Jewish. Arabs form the country's second-largest ethnic group with 1,627,900 people.[3] The great majority of Israeli Arabs are settled-Muslims, with smaller but significant numbers of semi-settled Negev Bedouins and Arab Christians. Other minorities include various ethnic and ethno-religious denominations such as Druze, Circassians, Black Hebrew Israelites,[19] Samaritans, Maronites and others.
Israel is a representative democracy with a parliamentary system, proportional representation and universal suffrage.[20][21] The Prime Minister serves as head of government and the Knesset serves as Israel's unicameral legislative body. Israel has one of the highest life expectancies in the world.[22] It is a developed country, an OECD member,[23] and its economy, based on the nominal gross domestic product, was the 40th-largest in the world in 2011.[24] Israel has the highest standard of living in the Middle East.[25]
Upon independence in 1948, the new Jewish state was formally named Medinat Yisrael, or the State of Israel, after other proposed historical and religious names including Eretz Israel ("the Land of Israel"), Zion, and Judea, were considered and rejected.[26] In the early weeks of independence, the government chose the term "Israeli" to denote a citizen of Israel, with the formal announcement made by Minister of Foreign Affairs Moshe Sharett.[27]
The name Israel has historically been used, in common and religious usage, to refer to the biblical Kingdom of Israel or the entire Jewish nation.[28] According to the Hebrew Bible the name "Israel" was given to the patriarch Jacob (Standard Yisraʾel, Isrāʾīl; Septuagint Greek: Ἰσραήλ Israēl; "struggle with God"[29]) after he successfully wrestled with the angel of the Lord.[30] Jacob's twelve sons became the ancestors of the Israelites, also known as the Twelve Tribes of Israel or Children of Israel. Jacob and his sons had lived in Canaan but were forced by famine to go into Egypt for four generations until Moses, a great-great grandson of Jacob,[31] led the Israelites back into Canaan in the "Exodus". The earliest archaeological artifact to mention the word "Israel" is the Merneptah Stele of ancient Egypt (dated to the late 13th century BCE).[32]
The area is also known as the Holy Land, being holy for all Abrahamic religions including Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Bahá'í Faith. Prior to the 1948 Israeli Declaration of Independence, the whole region was known by various other names including Southern Syria, Syria Palestina, Kingdom of Jerusalem, Iudaea Province, Coele-Syria, Retjenu, Canaan and, particularly, Palestine.
The Bank of Israel was ranked first among central banks for its efficient functioning, up from the 8th place in 2009. Israel was also ranked as the worldwide leader in its supply of skilled manpower.[278] The Bank of Israel holds $78 billion of foreign-exchange reserves.[279]
Source: Wikipedia
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Obama threatens to invade Syria
Yesterday US and NATO officials discussed plans for a US military invasion of Syria to bring down Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, after US President Barack Obama announced that the US was contemplating a direct attack on Syria at a press conference Monday night.
A delegation led by Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Beth Jones discussed US military plans with Turkey. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said that Defense Department and US intelligence officials met their Turkish counterparts “to share operational pictures, to talk about the effectiveness of what we’re doing now, and about what more we can do.”
Senior US officials said that contingency plans for US intervention in Syria include scenarios requiring tens of thousands of American troops.
At a press conference at the White House Monday, Obama declared: “I have indicated repeatedly that President al-Assad has lost legitimacy, that he needs to step down. So far, he hasn’t gotten the message, and instead has double downed in violence on his own people. The international community has sent a clear message that rather than drag his country into civil war he should move in the direction of a political transition. But at this point, the likelihood of a soft landing seems pretty distant.”
Obama said that he would order “military engagement” if chemical or biological weapons are moved or used in Syria. He said that Syria’s alleged stockpile of chemical weapons “concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation in which chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.”
Obama added that the US “have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region, that that’s a red line for us, and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front, or the use of chemical weapons.”
The cynicism with which Obama is seeking to justify the next US imperialist aggression in the Middle East is staggering. The main groups in Syria who could seize chemical weapons from Syrian government stockpiles are Al Qaeda forces promoted by the US and its allies as shock troops against Assad. (See also: “Washington’s proxy in Syria: Al Qaeda”)
Having armed Al Qaeda-linked groups and sent them into Syria to carry out bombings and assassinations, the US and its allies now plan to justify their invasion of Syria by citing the need to protect the world’s population from Al Qaeda’s terrorist atrocities!
The Obama administration advances its arguments today with total disregard for the fact that they clash with the lies used until now to justify its support for Sunni anti-Assad “rebels.”
For months it maintained the pretense that it would not directly attack Syria, and that the Syrian regime’s statements that it was fighting US-backed terrorists were “propaganda.” Now, the White House is admitting that terrorist groups play a major role in the anti-Assad forces, and citing this as a pretext for war.
By proceeding in this fashion, the Obama administration demonstrates its complete contempt for the American electorate, which voted him into office in 2008 in large part based on hopes he would stop the US military aggressions against countries in the Middle East. Today, as during the 2003 invasion of Syria’s neighbor, Iraq, Washington is preparing to invade a country based on cynical lies about weapons of mass destruction.
A US invasion of Syria would be a crime of historic proportions, like the war in Iraq—a country whose population is only slightly larger than Syria’s. This war led to the deaths of over a million Iraqis and thousands of US and allied soldiers. Iraq became a battleground for US occupation forces, as well as Sunni and Shiite death squads that carried out sectarian bombings and massacres.
A US invasion would threaten similar carnage inside Syria, which is already being torn apart by sectarian fighting in which Washington is working with right-wing regimes in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to back Sunni Islamist forces against Syria’s Alawite regime. However, the far greater tensions in a region already destabilized by a decade of US and Israeli wars in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, and Libya now threaten to spread the violence over the entire Middle East.
Sectarian bloodshed provoked by the intensifying US intervention in the region is already spilling over into Syria’s neighbors. On Tuesday four people were killed and more than 60 wounded in firefights between Sunni Muslims and Shiite Alawites in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli. Tensions in Lebanon have been growing for months, with Western-backed forces seeking to provoke the Lebanese government which is led by the Shiite organization Hizbollah, a close ally of Syria and Iran.
A US war against Syria would be the next step in an ongoing campaign by US imperialism to deepen its hegemony over the energy-rich and geo-strategically vital regions of the Persian Gulf and Central Asia.
The Syrian regime responded to US threats with warnings and proposals for negotiations. Syrian Deputy Prime Minister Qadri Jamil described Obama’s statements about chemical weapons as a pretext for Western intervention in Syria. “The West is looking for an excuse for direct intervention. If this excuse does not work, it will look for another excuse.” He warned that an attack on Syria would turn the conflict into a regional war, saying: “Those who are contemplating this evidently want to see the crisis expand beyond Syria’s borders.”
Jamil announced that the Syrian regime is willing to talk with the opposition to work out a transition, however. He even declared that Assad’s presidency is negotiable, stating: “We are ready to discuss Assad’s resignation—but not as precondition.”
Obama’s war threats against Syria are also deepening tensions with Russia and China, who have already vetoed three UN Security Council resolutions backed by the US and its Western and Arab allies aiming to give a pseudo-legal fig leaf for US aggression against Syria.
Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov spoke at a meeting in Moscow with China’s State Councilor Dai Bingguo, who also met Russian President Vladimir Putin and his top security adviser, Nikolai Patrushev, on Monday. Lavrov said that both Russia and China base their diplomatic cooperation on “the need to strictly adhere to the norms of international law and the principles contained in the U.N. Charter, and not to allow their violation.”
Lavrov said that only the Security Council has the authority to approve the use of external force against Syria, warning against imposing “democracy by bombs.” Russian officials have reportedly stated that they hope to avoid a repetition of the attack on Libya last year. Moscow abstained from the Security Council vote on Libya, and a resolution was passed which was subsequently used by NATO to justify its bombing of the country.
Source: World Socialist Web Site
A delegation led by Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Beth Jones discussed US military plans with Turkey. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said that Defense Department and US intelligence officials met their Turkish counterparts “to share operational pictures, to talk about the effectiveness of what we’re doing now, and about what more we can do.”
Senior US officials said that contingency plans for US intervention in Syria include scenarios requiring tens of thousands of American troops.
At a press conference at the White House Monday, Obama declared: “I have indicated repeatedly that President al-Assad has lost legitimacy, that he needs to step down. So far, he hasn’t gotten the message, and instead has double downed in violence on his own people. The international community has sent a clear message that rather than drag his country into civil war he should move in the direction of a political transition. But at this point, the likelihood of a soft landing seems pretty distant.”
Obama said that he would order “military engagement” if chemical or biological weapons are moved or used in Syria. He said that Syria’s alleged stockpile of chemical weapons “concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation in which chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.”
Obama added that the US “have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region, that that’s a red line for us, and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front, or the use of chemical weapons.”
The cynicism with which Obama is seeking to justify the next US imperialist aggression in the Middle East is staggering. The main groups in Syria who could seize chemical weapons from Syrian government stockpiles are Al Qaeda forces promoted by the US and its allies as shock troops against Assad. (See also: “Washington’s proxy in Syria: Al Qaeda”)
Having armed Al Qaeda-linked groups and sent them into Syria to carry out bombings and assassinations, the US and its allies now plan to justify their invasion of Syria by citing the need to protect the world’s population from Al Qaeda’s terrorist atrocities!
The Obama administration advances its arguments today with total disregard for the fact that they clash with the lies used until now to justify its support for Sunni anti-Assad “rebels.”
For months it maintained the pretense that it would not directly attack Syria, and that the Syrian regime’s statements that it was fighting US-backed terrorists were “propaganda.” Now, the White House is admitting that terrorist groups play a major role in the anti-Assad forces, and citing this as a pretext for war.
By proceeding in this fashion, the Obama administration demonstrates its complete contempt for the American electorate, which voted him into office in 2008 in large part based on hopes he would stop the US military aggressions against countries in the Middle East. Today, as during the 2003 invasion of Syria’s neighbor, Iraq, Washington is preparing to invade a country based on cynical lies about weapons of mass destruction.
A US invasion of Syria would be a crime of historic proportions, like the war in Iraq—a country whose population is only slightly larger than Syria’s. This war led to the deaths of over a million Iraqis and thousands of US and allied soldiers. Iraq became a battleground for US occupation forces, as well as Sunni and Shiite death squads that carried out sectarian bombings and massacres.
A US invasion would threaten similar carnage inside Syria, which is already being torn apart by sectarian fighting in which Washington is working with right-wing regimes in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to back Sunni Islamist forces against Syria’s Alawite regime. However, the far greater tensions in a region already destabilized by a decade of US and Israeli wars in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, and Libya now threaten to spread the violence over the entire Middle East.
Sectarian bloodshed provoked by the intensifying US intervention in the region is already spilling over into Syria’s neighbors. On Tuesday four people were killed and more than 60 wounded in firefights between Sunni Muslims and Shiite Alawites in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli. Tensions in Lebanon have been growing for months, with Western-backed forces seeking to provoke the Lebanese government which is led by the Shiite organization Hizbollah, a close ally of Syria and Iran.
A US war against Syria would be the next step in an ongoing campaign by US imperialism to deepen its hegemony over the energy-rich and geo-strategically vital regions of the Persian Gulf and Central Asia.
The Syrian regime responded to US threats with warnings and proposals for negotiations. Syrian Deputy Prime Minister Qadri Jamil described Obama’s statements about chemical weapons as a pretext for Western intervention in Syria. “The West is looking for an excuse for direct intervention. If this excuse does not work, it will look for another excuse.” He warned that an attack on Syria would turn the conflict into a regional war, saying: “Those who are contemplating this evidently want to see the crisis expand beyond Syria’s borders.”
Jamil announced that the Syrian regime is willing to talk with the opposition to work out a transition, however. He even declared that Assad’s presidency is negotiable, stating: “We are ready to discuss Assad’s resignation—but not as precondition.”
Obama’s war threats against Syria are also deepening tensions with Russia and China, who have already vetoed three UN Security Council resolutions backed by the US and its Western and Arab allies aiming to give a pseudo-legal fig leaf for US aggression against Syria.
Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov spoke at a meeting in Moscow with China’s State Councilor Dai Bingguo, who also met Russian President Vladimir Putin and his top security adviser, Nikolai Patrushev, on Monday. Lavrov said that both Russia and China base their diplomatic cooperation on “the need to strictly adhere to the norms of international law and the principles contained in the U.N. Charter, and not to allow their violation.”
Lavrov said that only the Security Council has the authority to approve the use of external force against Syria, warning against imposing “democracy by bombs.” Russian officials have reportedly stated that they hope to avoid a repetition of the attack on Libya last year. Moscow abstained from the Security Council vote on Libya, and a resolution was passed which was subsequently used by NATO to justify its bombing of the country.
Source: World Socialist Web Site
Displacement crisis in Syria: no time to lose
“It is critical to reach an agreement with Syrian
authorities on securing humanitarian access inside Syria and to ensure
that funds are available to respond to the needs on the ground.”
Five members of The Elders have joined leading humanitarian organisations to highlight the plight of the more than 1.5 million people in Syria driven from their homes by conflict.
Source: The Elders
Five members of The Elders have joined leading humanitarian organisations to highlight the plight of the more than 1.5 million people in Syria driven from their homes by conflict.
Elders Ela Bhatt, Gro Harlem Brundtland, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Graça Machel and Mary Robinson – together with leading
humanitarian organisations – yesterday called on the UN and Arab League
to find a way of ensuring that vital food, sanitation and medical
assistance reaches those in need.
In an open letter to UN Security Council Ambassadors, they highlight the dire needs of internally displaced people within Syria who face continued violence, separation from essential services, increasingly scarce food reserves, and fragmenting social support networks.
The growing number of displaced people has outstripped the capacity of local communities to support them, and extreme restrictions on humanitarian access mean that hundreds of thousands of people are simply cut off from any assistance.
The signatories urge the international community to pursue an agreement with the Syrian authorities on securing humanitarian access - and to ensure that the necessary funds are available.
“We urge you not to allow the welfare of thousands of displaced people in Syria to be held hostage to the ongoing deadlock at the political level,” the letter says.
In an open letter to UN Security Council Ambassadors, they highlight the dire needs of internally displaced people within Syria who face continued violence, separation from essential services, increasingly scarce food reserves, and fragmenting social support networks.
The growing number of displaced people has outstripped the capacity of local communities to support them, and extreme restrictions on humanitarian access mean that hundreds of thousands of people are simply cut off from any assistance.
The signatories urge the international community to pursue an agreement with the Syrian authorities on securing humanitarian access - and to ensure that the necessary funds are available.
“We urge you not to allow the welfare of thousands of displaced people in Syria to be held hostage to the ongoing deadlock at the political level,” the letter says.
Source: The Elders
Friday, August 17, 2012
Why are you repeating the sins of the apartheid regime?
DEAR Deputy Minister Ebrahim,
You are a minister of the South African government, appointed to advance the interests of the republic and the people of South Africa in an impartial and rational manner. As a citizen and as a national religious leader of South Africa, I object to the way in which you are abusing your high office to promote your personal agenda.
You obviously have a "blind spot" when it comes to Israel; you lose your sense of objectivity and rationality when dealing with the Jewish state.
You have used your platform and title in an active campaign to prevent South Africans — and especially members of the government — from visiting Israel. This is but one example of your irrational obsession with Israel to the detriment of the proper execution of your governmental duties. You have acted in breach of your government’s own foreign policy, in terms of which South Africa and Israel have full diplomatic relations.
Your actions hark back to apartheid-style control of information and censorship.
Why would you try to prevent South Africans from travelling to Israel and seeing the situation for themselves? Do you think, Mr Ebrahim, that the South African people are not as clever as you are, that they cannot think for themselves and that they need to be protected from the facts?
Maybe you are afraid — and rightly so — that if people go to Israel and see the situation for themselves, their perspective will be completely different. Are you worried that they will see that, in fact, there is no apartheid in Israel? South Africans visiting Israel will find a multiracial, multi-ethnic vibrant society in which more than 1.5-million Arabs live as full and equal Israeli citizens, vote as part of a single national voters’ roll and have full legal rights in all areas of society.
Are you concerned that when South Africans travel on buses, visit parks, malls, hospitals and university campuses, attend the Israeli parliament and the Supreme Court, they will find Jews and Arabs living and working together in complete equality? They may hear, for example, that, in fact, it was an Arab judge who convicted former Israeli president Moshe Katsav on rape charges.
Maybe you are afraid that South African Christians will find that Israel is the only country in the Middle East where they can practise their religion freely, without fear; that South African women will find that Israel is the only country in the Middle East where they can be fully equal citizens; that South African trade unionists will discover that Israel is the only country in the Middle East where there are legal and active trade unions that protect workers’ rights; that South African journalists will see that Israel is the only country in the Middle East where freedom of expression is properly upheld.
Are you worried that our fellow South Africans may learn that successive Israeli governments have supported the establishment of a Palestinian state as part of a negotiated peace agreement?
Are you concerned that South Africans may speak to Ehud Barak, the dovish former prime minister of Israel, who desperately tried at the Camp David and Taba negotiations to create a Palestinian state, only to be rebuffed by the Palestinian leadership?
Are you concerned that South Africans might hear for themselves directly from the current Israeli government how it seeks to return immediately to the negotiating table without preconditions, and that it is the Palestinian leadership that refuses to do so?
Maybe you are worried that our fellow South Africans may discover that the so-called "separation wall" is actually a security fence; that before it was erected, waves of suicide bombers killed more than 1,300 Israelis and wounded more than 10,000, and that since its erection these attacks have stopped. Maybe you are afraid that South Africans might speak to members of Hamas, who openly call for the destruction of the state of Israel and the murder of all Jews around the world.
Mr Ebrahim, your personal bias against Israel prevents you from fulfilling your legal and ethical duties as minister of international relations and co-operation, who, with impartiality and sound judgment, is supposed to further peace, justice and South African strategic interests in the world. Your actions to discourage South Africans from travelling to Israel are but one manifestation of your extremist views.
In so doing, you are jeopardising SA’s international credibility and strategic interests. It is indeed the ideological allies of Hamas and Hezbollah — Israel’s sworn enemies — who have also launched a terror campaign against Christian communities throughout Africa. In recent months, scores of churches have been burnt and hundreds of Christians have been murdered because of their faith. Nigeria, one of our key African partners, has borne the brunt of some of the worst attacks.
As a leading African nation, South Africa must condemn these attacks and express support and offer assistance to its fellow African governments in Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan and elsewhere. To South Africa’s shame, you have remained silent. You have been too hesitant and weak in condemning Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s actions, which have resulted in the deaths of more than 20,000 of his citizens and the displacement of nearly 150,000 people.
These are but a few examples of how your prejudice precludes you from fulfilling your role as a minister of this government.
You seem to forget that your mandate is to serve the interests of the people and the government of South Africa and not your own personal allegiances. A judge who is biased or perceived to be so is legally and ethically required to remove himself from the case, in the interest of integrity, justice and truth. These same values require that you do the same and resign.
Especially during such turbulent times, how does a minister of international relations discourage people from travelling and seeing for themselves?
Why do you repeat the sins of the apartheid regime and shun dialogue with and understanding of the "other"?
Peace cannot be achieved by withdrawal and isolation; as the Book of Psalms (34:15) says: "Seek peace, and pursue it." The dream of peace will become a reality only when people proactively pursue it and move beyond their prejudices and preconceptions and truly understand the complex realities of the Middle East in an open-minded and balanced way. Your actions support the forces of extremism, hatred and violence, and undermine the forces of tolerance, freedom and peaceful negotiations.
For the sake of peace and justice, we need more information, not less; we need more dialogue, not less; we need more connections with other societies, not less. You clearly do not believe so, and hence you are unfit to hold public office.
Do the honourable thing: resign.
Dr Warren Goldstein
Chief Rabbi
Source: Business Day
You are a minister of the South African government, appointed to advance the interests of the republic and the people of South Africa in an impartial and rational manner. As a citizen and as a national religious leader of South Africa, I object to the way in which you are abusing your high office to promote your personal agenda.
You obviously have a "blind spot" when it comes to Israel; you lose your sense of objectivity and rationality when dealing with the Jewish state.
You have used your platform and title in an active campaign to prevent South Africans — and especially members of the government — from visiting Israel. This is but one example of your irrational obsession with Israel to the detriment of the proper execution of your governmental duties. You have acted in breach of your government’s own foreign policy, in terms of which South Africa and Israel have full diplomatic relations.
Your actions hark back to apartheid-style control of information and censorship.
Why would you try to prevent South Africans from travelling to Israel and seeing the situation for themselves? Do you think, Mr Ebrahim, that the South African people are not as clever as you are, that they cannot think for themselves and that they need to be protected from the facts?
Maybe you are afraid — and rightly so — that if people go to Israel and see the situation for themselves, their perspective will be completely different. Are you worried that they will see that, in fact, there is no apartheid in Israel? South Africans visiting Israel will find a multiracial, multi-ethnic vibrant society in which more than 1.5-million Arabs live as full and equal Israeli citizens, vote as part of a single national voters’ roll and have full legal rights in all areas of society.
Are you concerned that when South Africans travel on buses, visit parks, malls, hospitals and university campuses, attend the Israeli parliament and the Supreme Court, they will find Jews and Arabs living and working together in complete equality? They may hear, for example, that, in fact, it was an Arab judge who convicted former Israeli president Moshe Katsav on rape charges.
Maybe you are afraid that South African Christians will find that Israel is the only country in the Middle East where they can practise their religion freely, without fear; that South African women will find that Israel is the only country in the Middle East where they can be fully equal citizens; that South African trade unionists will discover that Israel is the only country in the Middle East where there are legal and active trade unions that protect workers’ rights; that South African journalists will see that Israel is the only country in the Middle East where freedom of expression is properly upheld.
Are you worried that our fellow South Africans may learn that successive Israeli governments have supported the establishment of a Palestinian state as part of a negotiated peace agreement?
Are you concerned that South Africans may speak to Ehud Barak, the dovish former prime minister of Israel, who desperately tried at the Camp David and Taba negotiations to create a Palestinian state, only to be rebuffed by the Palestinian leadership?
Are you concerned that South Africans might hear for themselves directly from the current Israeli government how it seeks to return immediately to the negotiating table without preconditions, and that it is the Palestinian leadership that refuses to do so?
Maybe you are worried that our fellow South Africans may discover that the so-called "separation wall" is actually a security fence; that before it was erected, waves of suicide bombers killed more than 1,300 Israelis and wounded more than 10,000, and that since its erection these attacks have stopped. Maybe you are afraid that South Africans might speak to members of Hamas, who openly call for the destruction of the state of Israel and the murder of all Jews around the world.
Mr Ebrahim, your personal bias against Israel prevents you from fulfilling your legal and ethical duties as minister of international relations and co-operation, who, with impartiality and sound judgment, is supposed to further peace, justice and South African strategic interests in the world. Your actions to discourage South Africans from travelling to Israel are but one manifestation of your extremist views.
In so doing, you are jeopardising SA’s international credibility and strategic interests. It is indeed the ideological allies of Hamas and Hezbollah — Israel’s sworn enemies — who have also launched a terror campaign against Christian communities throughout Africa. In recent months, scores of churches have been burnt and hundreds of Christians have been murdered because of their faith. Nigeria, one of our key African partners, has borne the brunt of some of the worst attacks.
As a leading African nation, South Africa must condemn these attacks and express support and offer assistance to its fellow African governments in Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan and elsewhere. To South Africa’s shame, you have remained silent. You have been too hesitant and weak in condemning Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s actions, which have resulted in the deaths of more than 20,000 of his citizens and the displacement of nearly 150,000 people.
These are but a few examples of how your prejudice precludes you from fulfilling your role as a minister of this government.
You seem to forget that your mandate is to serve the interests of the people and the government of South Africa and not your own personal allegiances. A judge who is biased or perceived to be so is legally and ethically required to remove himself from the case, in the interest of integrity, justice and truth. These same values require that you do the same and resign.
Especially during such turbulent times, how does a minister of international relations discourage people from travelling and seeing for themselves?
Why do you repeat the sins of the apartheid regime and shun dialogue with and understanding of the "other"?
Peace cannot be achieved by withdrawal and isolation; as the Book of Psalms (34:15) says: "Seek peace, and pursue it." The dream of peace will become a reality only when people proactively pursue it and move beyond their prejudices and preconceptions and truly understand the complex realities of the Middle East in an open-minded and balanced way. Your actions support the forces of extremism, hatred and violence, and undermine the forces of tolerance, freedom and peaceful negotiations.
For the sake of peace and justice, we need more information, not less; we need more dialogue, not less; we need more connections with other societies, not less. You clearly do not believe so, and hence you are unfit to hold public office.
Do the honourable thing: resign.
Dr Warren Goldstein
Chief Rabbi
Source: Business Day
Friday, August 10, 2012
Washington’s proxy in Syria: Al Qaeda
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday issued a warning against anyone “attempting to exploit the misery of the Syrian people, either by sending in proxies or sending in terrorist fighters.” She insisted that such actions would “not be tolerated.”
Neither she nor the State Department cared to spell out precisely which countries or organizations were being warned. Hidden behind Clinton’s hypocritical statement is the reality that US imperialism and its allies are themselves relying on, bankrolling and arming just such “proxies” and “terrorist fighters” to pursue their war for regime-change in Syria.
Chief among these forces is Washington’s supposed arch enemy, the Islamist terrorist organization Al Qaeda.
The growing acknowledgment within official circles that Al Qaeda is playing a decisive role in Syria’s civil war exposes both the real nature of the US-backed bid to topple the government of President Bashar al-Assad and the fraud of Washington’s “war on terror.”
Having for months dismissed as “propaganda” the Syrian government’s statements that it is battling Al Qaeda terrorists, the corporate media and sources close to the US government are now not only acknowledging the role of this organization in the Syrian events, but celebrating it.
The major US news networks all carried reports on Monday and Tuesday highlighting Al Qaeda’s presence inside Syria. These follow a report in the New York Times late last month that Al Qaeda is operating in the heart of the so-called Syrian “revolution” through three groups: the Al Nusra Front for the People of the Levant, the Abdullah Azzam Brigades and Al Baraa ibn Malik Martyrdom Brigade.
The frankest admission of the significance of Al Qaeda’s role came Monday in an article posted on the web site of the Council on Foreign Relations by Ed Husain, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies and one of the council’s chief analysts on Islamist political movements in the Middle East.
Husain wrote: “The Syrian rebels would be immeasurably weaker today without al-Qaeda in their ranks. By and large, Free Syrian Army (FSA) battalions are tired, divided, chaotic, and ineffective… Al-Qaeda fighters, however, may help improve morale. The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results. In short, the FSA needs al-Qaeda now.”
Husain predicts that “Al-Qaeda could become the most effective fighting force in Syria if defections from the FSA” to its ranks continue growing and “the ranks of foreign fighters continue to swell.” Recent media reports have made clear that Islamist fighters from as far away as Chechnya are being funneled into Syria across the Turkish border, along with many more from Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan and elsewhere.
The US reaction? “Thus far, Washington seems reluctant to weigh heavily into this issue,” writes Husain. “The unspoken position of policymakers is to get rid of Assad first—weakening Iran’s position in the region—and then deal with Al-Qaeda later.”
Such statements are not made lightly and are based upon intimate knowledge of American policy. The Council on Foreign Relations has the closest ties to the State Department of any Washington think tank. Sitting on its board of directors are two former secretaries of state, Colin Powell and Madeleine Albright.
What is involved here are political realities that serve to blow up the pretexts for both the war in Syria and the “global war on terrorism” that has served as the touchstone for US policy, both foreign and domestic, for over a decade.
Washington is not waging a crusade for democracy and human rights in Syria. It is involved in a dirty war in which carnage is being unleashed against the Syrian population as a means of toppling a regime that has historic ties to Tehran. This, in turn, is meant to pave the way for a wider war aimed at eliminating Iran as a rival for regional hegemony in the energy-rich and geo-strategically vital regions of the Persian Gulf and Central Asia.
That Iran itself recognizes these aims was spelled out Tuesday by Iranian envoy Saeed Jalili, who traveled to Damascus. “What is happening in Syria is not an internal Syrian issue but a conflict between the axis of resistance and its enemies in the region and the world,” he said.
The New York Times as much as admitted the accuracy of this assessment, acknowledging that it is not “surprising that Tehran should view the internal conflict in Syria as part of a wider international war--with Iran as the ultimate target.” It continued: “To understand the roots of Iranian paranoia, just look at the map. Iran has been steadily encircled by a network of US military bases in the decades since the Iranian revolution of 1979.”
As for Al Qaeda, after being used as a bogeyman to justify two wars of aggression and a sweeping and continuing assault on democratic rights within the US itself, it now emerges as the indispensable shock troops in Washington’s war for regime-change in Syria.
This alliance is virtually a direct repetition of the relations established by the CIA and Washington when Al Qaeda was founded by Osama bin Laden in the early 1980s. Then it funneled Islamist mujahideen fighters across the Pakistani border into Afghanistan in a war against a Soviet-backed regime that was orchestrated by the CIA and funded with billions of US dollars.
Now the CIA is playing a similar role in Syria, overseeing a huge logistical operation on the Turkish border. Can anyone believe that armed Chechen jihadis are marching across Georgia and Turkey into Syria without the active collaboration of US intelligence?
All of the rhetoric about a global war against Islamist terrorism notwithstanding, the reality is that US imperialism has utilized such forces over the course of decades. Saudi Arabia, which provides these forces with both financial and ideological backing, is Washington’s key Arab ally. Throughout the Cold War, the US government promoted the virulently anti-communist forces of political Islam in the Middle East as well as Asia as a means of destabilizing and toppling nationalist and secular regimes and countering the development of socialist movements.
The response of the US media and the political apparatus as a whole to revelations about Al Qaeda’s role in Syria goes beyond cynicism. It expresses deep-going political disorientation. In Orwellian style, the media reports that yesterday’s mortal enemy has turned into today’s ally without skipping a beat and without seeing the need for explanation. Not a single leading politician has seen fit even to publicly question this transformation.
The lineup of US imperialism and Al Qaeda in Syria exposes even more glaringly the reactionary role played by pseudo-left groups like the International Socialist Organization (ISO) in supporting the imperialist-led drive for regime-change and even casting it as a “revolution.”
Do they all really believe that the American people won’t notice, after having been dragged into two protracted wars, costing the lives of thousands of US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan civilians, as well as trillions of dollars, all in the name of the struggle against Al Qaeda? If so, they are deeply mistaken. These revelations will have an explosive effect in laying bare and discrediting the entire US ruling establishment.
Source: World Socialist Web Site
Neither she nor the State Department cared to spell out precisely which countries or organizations were being warned. Hidden behind Clinton’s hypocritical statement is the reality that US imperialism and its allies are themselves relying on, bankrolling and arming just such “proxies” and “terrorist fighters” to pursue their war for regime-change in Syria.
Chief among these forces is Washington’s supposed arch enemy, the Islamist terrorist organization Al Qaeda.
The growing acknowledgment within official circles that Al Qaeda is playing a decisive role in Syria’s civil war exposes both the real nature of the US-backed bid to topple the government of President Bashar al-Assad and the fraud of Washington’s “war on terror.”
Having for months dismissed as “propaganda” the Syrian government’s statements that it is battling Al Qaeda terrorists, the corporate media and sources close to the US government are now not only acknowledging the role of this organization in the Syrian events, but celebrating it.
The major US news networks all carried reports on Monday and Tuesday highlighting Al Qaeda’s presence inside Syria. These follow a report in the New York Times late last month that Al Qaeda is operating in the heart of the so-called Syrian “revolution” through three groups: the Al Nusra Front for the People of the Levant, the Abdullah Azzam Brigades and Al Baraa ibn Malik Martyrdom Brigade.
The frankest admission of the significance of Al Qaeda’s role came Monday in an article posted on the web site of the Council on Foreign Relations by Ed Husain, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies and one of the council’s chief analysts on Islamist political movements in the Middle East.
Husain wrote: “The Syrian rebels would be immeasurably weaker today without al-Qaeda in their ranks. By and large, Free Syrian Army (FSA) battalions are tired, divided, chaotic, and ineffective… Al-Qaeda fighters, however, may help improve morale. The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results. In short, the FSA needs al-Qaeda now.”
Husain predicts that “Al-Qaeda could become the most effective fighting force in Syria if defections from the FSA” to its ranks continue growing and “the ranks of foreign fighters continue to swell.” Recent media reports have made clear that Islamist fighters from as far away as Chechnya are being funneled into Syria across the Turkish border, along with many more from Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan and elsewhere.
The US reaction? “Thus far, Washington seems reluctant to weigh heavily into this issue,” writes Husain. “The unspoken position of policymakers is to get rid of Assad first—weakening Iran’s position in the region—and then deal with Al-Qaeda later.”
Such statements are not made lightly and are based upon intimate knowledge of American policy. The Council on Foreign Relations has the closest ties to the State Department of any Washington think tank. Sitting on its board of directors are two former secretaries of state, Colin Powell and Madeleine Albright.
What is involved here are political realities that serve to blow up the pretexts for both the war in Syria and the “global war on terrorism” that has served as the touchstone for US policy, both foreign and domestic, for over a decade.
Washington is not waging a crusade for democracy and human rights in Syria. It is involved in a dirty war in which carnage is being unleashed against the Syrian population as a means of toppling a regime that has historic ties to Tehran. This, in turn, is meant to pave the way for a wider war aimed at eliminating Iran as a rival for regional hegemony in the energy-rich and geo-strategically vital regions of the Persian Gulf and Central Asia.
That Iran itself recognizes these aims was spelled out Tuesday by Iranian envoy Saeed Jalili, who traveled to Damascus. “What is happening in Syria is not an internal Syrian issue but a conflict between the axis of resistance and its enemies in the region and the world,” he said.
The New York Times as much as admitted the accuracy of this assessment, acknowledging that it is not “surprising that Tehran should view the internal conflict in Syria as part of a wider international war--with Iran as the ultimate target.” It continued: “To understand the roots of Iranian paranoia, just look at the map. Iran has been steadily encircled by a network of US military bases in the decades since the Iranian revolution of 1979.”
As for Al Qaeda, after being used as a bogeyman to justify two wars of aggression and a sweeping and continuing assault on democratic rights within the US itself, it now emerges as the indispensable shock troops in Washington’s war for regime-change in Syria.
This alliance is virtually a direct repetition of the relations established by the CIA and Washington when Al Qaeda was founded by Osama bin Laden in the early 1980s. Then it funneled Islamist mujahideen fighters across the Pakistani border into Afghanistan in a war against a Soviet-backed regime that was orchestrated by the CIA and funded with billions of US dollars.
Now the CIA is playing a similar role in Syria, overseeing a huge logistical operation on the Turkish border. Can anyone believe that armed Chechen jihadis are marching across Georgia and Turkey into Syria without the active collaboration of US intelligence?
All of the rhetoric about a global war against Islamist terrorism notwithstanding, the reality is that US imperialism has utilized such forces over the course of decades. Saudi Arabia, which provides these forces with both financial and ideological backing, is Washington’s key Arab ally. Throughout the Cold War, the US government promoted the virulently anti-communist forces of political Islam in the Middle East as well as Asia as a means of destabilizing and toppling nationalist and secular regimes and countering the development of socialist movements.
The response of the US media and the political apparatus as a whole to revelations about Al Qaeda’s role in Syria goes beyond cynicism. It expresses deep-going political disorientation. In Orwellian style, the media reports that yesterday’s mortal enemy has turned into today’s ally without skipping a beat and without seeing the need for explanation. Not a single leading politician has seen fit even to publicly question this transformation.
The lineup of US imperialism and Al Qaeda in Syria exposes even more glaringly the reactionary role played by pseudo-left groups like the International Socialist Organization (ISO) in supporting the imperialist-led drive for regime-change and even casting it as a “revolution.”
Do they all really believe that the American people won’t notice, after having been dragged into two protracted wars, costing the lives of thousands of US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan civilians, as well as trillions of dollars, all in the name of the struggle against Al Qaeda? If so, they are deeply mistaken. These revelations will have an explosive effect in laying bare and discrediting the entire US ruling establishment.
Source: World Socialist Web Site
Monday, July 9, 2012
Profile: Syria's ruling Baath Party
During nearly five decades in power, Syria's Baath Party has evolved from an Arab nationalist movement into a vast organisation that has infiltrated every aspect of public life.
When Hafez al-Assad seized power in a coup in 1970, the party became a vital tool to instil loyalty, as well as help control the government and military alongside the pervasive security services. The party's senior leaders have remained loyal to the late president's son, Bashar, despite a call from the main opposition coalition, the Syrian National Council (SNC), for them to defect in protest at the violent crackdown on anti-government protests that began in March 2011.
Pan-Arabism
The Baath Party was founded in 1947 by Michel Aflaq, a Syrian teacher, whose brand of radical Arab nationalism won supporters across the region. The party's early slogan "unity, freedom, socialism" attracted a generation of Arab political activists who wanted to overthrow the European-backed governments of the Middle East and create a modern industrial economy. Former Syrian President Hafez al-Assad (2000) Hafez al-Assad used the Baath Party to help control the Syrian government and military
In 1953, the Baath Party merged with Akram Hawrani's Arab Socialist Party to become the Arab Socialist Baath Party. The shrewd alliance helped the new group quickly become a serious challenge to its rivals. However, it was army officers who played the leading role in establishing Baathist rule. Hafez al-Assad was among a group of Baath supporters in the Syrian army who seized power in 1963.
Growing disagreements between the civilian Baathists, such as Aflaq, and the party's Military Committee, led by young officers such as Assad, caused a split in the pan-Arab movement. Aflaq's supporters were forced from the Baath Party leadership. They found refuge in Iraq, where the Baath Party returned to power in a coup in July 1968. The Iraqi Baathists elected a new pan-Arab leadership, which included Saddam Hussein and Aflaq. After Hafez al-Assad launched his own coup in Syria in 1970, dubbed the "Corrective Movement", the rift between the rival wings of the Baath Party deepened. A Syrian court condemned Aflaq and other veteran Baathists to death, after trials held in their absence.
Indoctrination
In 1973, the Syrian constitution was amended to give the Baath Party unique status as the "leader of the state and society", ushering it into all areas of public life.
Its main role was to issue directives from the central government to regional representatives, mobilise the masses for political activities, and gauge the "mood" of the general population. Bashar al-Assad shakes hands with Baath Party members before being elected chairman of its Regional Command in 2000 Bashar al-Assad sought to present himself as a reformer at first. Children were indoctrinated with the party's ideology at school, Baathists controlled trade unions, and the Military Committee monitored the armed forces.
Many posts in the public sector, the military and government were generally reserved for Baathists, which helped boost party membership. By 1981, some 375,000 people had joined the party. By 2010, this number had reportedly risen to 1.2 million - nearly 10% of the population. The only other legal parties were from the National Progressive Front (NPF) - an alliance of nationalist and left-wing supporters of the government who accepted the Baath Party's "leading role".
Baathist officials were, however, targeted during an armed insurrection by Sunni Islamist groups in the late 1970s and early 1980s, which culminated in a rebellion in Hama in February 1982 that was brutally crushed, leaving between 10,000 and 25,000 people dead. Over the next two decades, the Baath Party remained hugely influential, but real power was increasingly collected in the hands of President Assad, his family, close advisers, the military and security services. Despite this, in the eyes of many Syrians the party embodied the corruption, nepotism and stagnation that became so widespread. When he was elected president and chairman of the Baath Party's Regional Command in 2000, Bashar al-Assad sought to present himself as a reformer.
Bashar al-Assad addresses the Baath Party conference (2005) Many Syrians were disappointed by the lack of change after the 2005 Baath Party conference
Ahead of a rare Baath Party regional conference in 2005, state media talked of an opportunity for the party's "revitalisation". But expectations that the constitution would be amended to remove the article making it the leader of state and society were never met. The political party law was also not changed to permit the existence of groups outside the National Progressive Front. In fact, it was only in February 2012, after nearly a year of anti-government protests and bloodshed that threatened the dominance of the Assad family and the Baath Party, that the constitution and the political party law were changed. They did not, however, have much of an impact at the subsequent parliamentary elections in May, which were boycotted by the opposition and saw pro-government parties win almost all the seats.
Holding on
At the start of the uprising, a large number of officials publicly left the party in protest at the government's suppression of dissent. And in March 2012 the then Deputy Oil Minister, Abdo Hussameddin, announced his defection to the opposition.
Anti-government demonstrators at a rally in Idlib, Syria The Baath Party has been a target of anti-government demonstrations across Syria
Such incidents gained a great deal of coverage in the world's media, but the Baath Party officials involved were appeared to be relatively minor. The party's main leadership bodies, the Regional Command and the National Command, have remained steadfastly loyal to Bashar al-Assad. Analysts say top officials in the Baath Party lead a privileged life, and stand to lose the most from a change of government. Many also belong to Syria's minority groups, including the president's own Alawite sect, and see the uprising as a struggle for survival.
It therefore seems unlikely that Baath Party leaders will abandoned the president in the near future, regardless of the increasing international pressure and rising death toll.
Source: BBC News
When Hafez al-Assad seized power in a coup in 1970, the party became a vital tool to instil loyalty, as well as help control the government and military alongside the pervasive security services. The party's senior leaders have remained loyal to the late president's son, Bashar, despite a call from the main opposition coalition, the Syrian National Council (SNC), for them to defect in protest at the violent crackdown on anti-government protests that began in March 2011.
Pan-Arabism
The Baath Party was founded in 1947 by Michel Aflaq, a Syrian teacher, whose brand of radical Arab nationalism won supporters across the region. The party's early slogan "unity, freedom, socialism" attracted a generation of Arab political activists who wanted to overthrow the European-backed governments of the Middle East and create a modern industrial economy. Former Syrian President Hafez al-Assad (2000) Hafez al-Assad used the Baath Party to help control the Syrian government and military
In 1953, the Baath Party merged with Akram Hawrani's Arab Socialist Party to become the Arab Socialist Baath Party. The shrewd alliance helped the new group quickly become a serious challenge to its rivals. However, it was army officers who played the leading role in establishing Baathist rule. Hafez al-Assad was among a group of Baath supporters in the Syrian army who seized power in 1963.
Growing disagreements between the civilian Baathists, such as Aflaq, and the party's Military Committee, led by young officers such as Assad, caused a split in the pan-Arab movement. Aflaq's supporters were forced from the Baath Party leadership. They found refuge in Iraq, where the Baath Party returned to power in a coup in July 1968. The Iraqi Baathists elected a new pan-Arab leadership, which included Saddam Hussein and Aflaq. After Hafez al-Assad launched his own coup in Syria in 1970, dubbed the "Corrective Movement", the rift between the rival wings of the Baath Party deepened. A Syrian court condemned Aflaq and other veteran Baathists to death, after trials held in their absence.
Indoctrination
In 1973, the Syrian constitution was amended to give the Baath Party unique status as the "leader of the state and society", ushering it into all areas of public life.
Its main role was to issue directives from the central government to regional representatives, mobilise the masses for political activities, and gauge the "mood" of the general population. Bashar al-Assad shakes hands with Baath Party members before being elected chairman of its Regional Command in 2000 Bashar al-Assad sought to present himself as a reformer at first. Children were indoctrinated with the party's ideology at school, Baathists controlled trade unions, and the Military Committee monitored the armed forces.
Many posts in the public sector, the military and government were generally reserved for Baathists, which helped boost party membership. By 1981, some 375,000 people had joined the party. By 2010, this number had reportedly risen to 1.2 million - nearly 10% of the population. The only other legal parties were from the National Progressive Front (NPF) - an alliance of nationalist and left-wing supporters of the government who accepted the Baath Party's "leading role".
Baathist officials were, however, targeted during an armed insurrection by Sunni Islamist groups in the late 1970s and early 1980s, which culminated in a rebellion in Hama in February 1982 that was brutally crushed, leaving between 10,000 and 25,000 people dead. Over the next two decades, the Baath Party remained hugely influential, but real power was increasingly collected in the hands of President Assad, his family, close advisers, the military and security services. Despite this, in the eyes of many Syrians the party embodied the corruption, nepotism and stagnation that became so widespread. When he was elected president and chairman of the Baath Party's Regional Command in 2000, Bashar al-Assad sought to present himself as a reformer.
Bashar al-Assad addresses the Baath Party conference (2005) Many Syrians were disappointed by the lack of change after the 2005 Baath Party conference
Ahead of a rare Baath Party regional conference in 2005, state media talked of an opportunity for the party's "revitalisation". But expectations that the constitution would be amended to remove the article making it the leader of state and society were never met. The political party law was also not changed to permit the existence of groups outside the National Progressive Front. In fact, it was only in February 2012, after nearly a year of anti-government protests and bloodshed that threatened the dominance of the Assad family and the Baath Party, that the constitution and the political party law were changed. They did not, however, have much of an impact at the subsequent parliamentary elections in May, which were boycotted by the opposition and saw pro-government parties win almost all the seats.
Holding on
At the start of the uprising, a large number of officials publicly left the party in protest at the government's suppression of dissent. And in March 2012 the then Deputy Oil Minister, Abdo Hussameddin, announced his defection to the opposition.
Anti-government demonstrators at a rally in Idlib, Syria The Baath Party has been a target of anti-government demonstrations across Syria
Such incidents gained a great deal of coverage in the world's media, but the Baath Party officials involved were appeared to be relatively minor. The party's main leadership bodies, the Regional Command and the National Command, have remained steadfastly loyal to Bashar al-Assad. Analysts say top officials in the Baath Party lead a privileged life, and stand to lose the most from a change of government. Many also belong to Syria's minority groups, including the president's own Alawite sect, and see the uprising as a struggle for survival.
It therefore seems unlikely that Baath Party leaders will abandoned the president in the near future, regardless of the increasing international pressure and rising death toll.
Source: BBC News
Monday, June 25, 2012
It's Time to Engage Iran, Russia on Syria
The battle for Syria is best understood as the epicenter and early stages of a regional sectarian conflict, rather than the last days of President Bashar al-Assad.
The civil war in Syria should give pause to those who are fixated on a timeline for Assad's fall. The Syrian president has taken some hits in the past week but has settled in for a no-holds-barred fight to hold onto power. Absent a substantial military intervention by the US or others, the military balance remains with Assad, including in Aleppo, where anti-regime militias have made a major push to seize control. The security officials named to replace those killed last week are familiar hard liners and Assad loyalists. Assad's forces appear to have beaten back the rebels in Damascus. Syrian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Jihad Makdissi acknowledged Syria's possession of chemical weapons this week, described by experts as "probably the largest and most advanced" program in the Arab world, adding that that they will not be used "unless Syria is exposed to external aggression." This threat earned a rebuke from Russia but signaled that Assad has no plans to abdicate.
Another reason reports of Assad's demise may be premature is because of the regional power struggle that is playing out in Syria. The US has until now subcontracted the armed insurgency to the patronage of Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Many in the Gulf Cooperation Council states consider Syria a sectarian battlefield to check Iranian and Shiite power and influence. Assad is an Alawite, a sect of Shiism, as well as a key ally of Iran. Alawites represents approximately 12%, or 2.6 million, of Syria's 22 million people. The so-called Shia arc of Iranian influence also includes Lebanon, which is dominated by Hezbollah, and Iraq. Iran is not likely to give up the fight with the stakes so high. Assad also has a backer in Russia, which is unwilling for now to cede its influence in Syria. Moscow may believe that the worse things get, the more its influence grows, as only it holds the key to negotiations with the Syrian government.
The implications of Syria for Iraq cannot be understated. The New York Times reports today (July 25) that "The presence of jihadists in Syria has accelerated in recent days, in part because of a convergence with the sectarian tensions across the country's long border in Iraq." Iraq, which endured a brutal sectarian civil war after Saddam Hussein was deposed by US forces in 2003, has suffered a resurgence of terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda-linked Sunni extremists with both ideological and operational ties to a growing jihadist presence in Syria. The civil war in Syria also has consequences for Lebanon, which has already seen violence at its borders, as well as Turkey, Jordan and Israel.
The Obama Administration should be mindful of steps that might accentuate, rather than resolve, the Syrian civil war and its regional consequences. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said yesterday, July 24, that "we have to work closely with the opposition because more and more territory is being taken, and it will eventually result in a safe haven inside Syria, which will then provide a base for further actions by the opposition."
The introduction of safe havens would open a new chapter in the Syrian conflict. On the one hand, safe havens would provide a base for humanitarian and refugee assistance, as well as for opposition activities. But there is a catch. Safe havens can also prolong rather than end the violence, creating a de facto partition and potentially increasing the prospects of the division or collapse of the state. A safe haven can also be a catalyst for mission creep, an enticement for further military intervention by the US and others, and facilitate an increase in the presence of foreign fighters, including terrorists.
If the US seeks to prevent Syria's collapse, reduce the prospects for further bloodshed and facilitate as stable a transition as possible, then Washington needs to open an urgent new diplomatic front with Russia and Iran, the two countries which retain the most leverage with Assad.
Only Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin has the clout with Assad to initiate a conversation about a transition. The US is frustrated that Russia has thwarted initiatives at the UN Security Council to impose sanctions on Syria. The sanctions effort at the Security Council, it should be said, has mostly been a waste of American diplomatic energy and capital because of Russia's position and because of the likely ineffectiveness of these sanctions on Assad, who is preoccupied with crushing the insurgency.
Iran has offered to be part of international discussions on Syria, but this has so far been nixed by the United States. Washington may, like its Gulf allies, see Iran as on defense because of the pressure of international sanctions and the conflict in Syria, and therefore want to keep Iran on the defense. While Iran may be down, it is far from out, especially in Syria and given the stalled nuclear negotiations. Better to have Iran engaged in Syria through diplomacy than via subterfuge and proxies, such as Hezbollah.
The US has no easy options or answers in Syria. It begins with do no harm. As Syria's civil war is inseparable from the broader regional conflict, the US must have its own strategy that assures that Syria does not deteriorate and go the way of 2003 Iraq, and in the process take Iraq of 2012 and others along with it.
Source: IISS
The civil war in Syria should give pause to those who are fixated on a timeline for Assad's fall. The Syrian president has taken some hits in the past week but has settled in for a no-holds-barred fight to hold onto power. Absent a substantial military intervention by the US or others, the military balance remains with Assad, including in Aleppo, where anti-regime militias have made a major push to seize control. The security officials named to replace those killed last week are familiar hard liners and Assad loyalists. Assad's forces appear to have beaten back the rebels in Damascus. Syrian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Jihad Makdissi acknowledged Syria's possession of chemical weapons this week, described by experts as "probably the largest and most advanced" program in the Arab world, adding that that they will not be used "unless Syria is exposed to external aggression." This threat earned a rebuke from Russia but signaled that Assad has no plans to abdicate.
Another reason reports of Assad's demise may be premature is because of the regional power struggle that is playing out in Syria. The US has until now subcontracted the armed insurgency to the patronage of Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Many in the Gulf Cooperation Council states consider Syria a sectarian battlefield to check Iranian and Shiite power and influence. Assad is an Alawite, a sect of Shiism, as well as a key ally of Iran. Alawites represents approximately 12%, or 2.6 million, of Syria's 22 million people. The so-called Shia arc of Iranian influence also includes Lebanon, which is dominated by Hezbollah, and Iraq. Iran is not likely to give up the fight with the stakes so high. Assad also has a backer in Russia, which is unwilling for now to cede its influence in Syria. Moscow may believe that the worse things get, the more its influence grows, as only it holds the key to negotiations with the Syrian government.
The implications of Syria for Iraq cannot be understated. The New York Times reports today (July 25) that "The presence of jihadists in Syria has accelerated in recent days, in part because of a convergence with the sectarian tensions across the country's long border in Iraq." Iraq, which endured a brutal sectarian civil war after Saddam Hussein was deposed by US forces in 2003, has suffered a resurgence of terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda-linked Sunni extremists with both ideological and operational ties to a growing jihadist presence in Syria. The civil war in Syria also has consequences for Lebanon, which has already seen violence at its borders, as well as Turkey, Jordan and Israel.
The Obama Administration should be mindful of steps that might accentuate, rather than resolve, the Syrian civil war and its regional consequences. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said yesterday, July 24, that "we have to work closely with the opposition because more and more territory is being taken, and it will eventually result in a safe haven inside Syria, which will then provide a base for further actions by the opposition."
The introduction of safe havens would open a new chapter in the Syrian conflict. On the one hand, safe havens would provide a base for humanitarian and refugee assistance, as well as for opposition activities. But there is a catch. Safe havens can also prolong rather than end the violence, creating a de facto partition and potentially increasing the prospects of the division or collapse of the state. A safe haven can also be a catalyst for mission creep, an enticement for further military intervention by the US and others, and facilitate an increase in the presence of foreign fighters, including terrorists.
If the US seeks to prevent Syria's collapse, reduce the prospects for further bloodshed and facilitate as stable a transition as possible, then Washington needs to open an urgent new diplomatic front with Russia and Iran, the two countries which retain the most leverage with Assad.
Only Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin has the clout with Assad to initiate a conversation about a transition. The US is frustrated that Russia has thwarted initiatives at the UN Security Council to impose sanctions on Syria. The sanctions effort at the Security Council, it should be said, has mostly been a waste of American diplomatic energy and capital because of Russia's position and because of the likely ineffectiveness of these sanctions on Assad, who is preoccupied with crushing the insurgency.
Iran has offered to be part of international discussions on Syria, but this has so far been nixed by the United States. Washington may, like its Gulf allies, see Iran as on defense because of the pressure of international sanctions and the conflict in Syria, and therefore want to keep Iran on the defense. While Iran may be down, it is far from out, especially in Syria and given the stalled nuclear negotiations. Better to have Iran engaged in Syria through diplomacy than via subterfuge and proxies, such as Hezbollah.
The US has no easy options or answers in Syria. It begins with do no harm. As Syria's civil war is inseparable from the broader regional conflict, the US must have its own strategy that assures that Syria does not deteriorate and go the way of 2003 Iraq, and in the process take Iraq of 2012 and others along with it.
Source: IISS
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Russia: Protecting expats and more in Syria
Russia is preparing to send two warships plus marines to Syria, as the civil war in that country shows no sign of letting up. Russia has for months supported the government of Bashar al-Assad at the UN Security Council, blocking resolutions authored by Western and Arab League states to sanction Damascus and pressure Assad to step down.
Most of Russia’s motivations for doing so are well known. Firstly, it is determined to ensure there is no Security Council cover for any external effort to topple a sovereign government, whether by military or other means. The principle of non-intervention is one that Moscow is desperate to defend. Secondly, the government of Vladimir Putin has no wish to see another president – in the Middle East or the former Soviet Union – ousted by the mob, for fear the virus could spread further. Thirdly, it fears the regional destabilisation that could accompany Assad’s downfall. And fourthly, Russia has commercial, diplomatic and military ties with the Assad government that would be in jeopardy if the opposition came to power. These interests include arms sales, use of the Tartous naval base, energy-sector investment opportunities and a close diplomatic alignment with Damascus.
The latest dispatch of naval vessels to Syria is on one level a further statement of support for the Assad government and the interests that Russia wishes to defend. So too is the delivery of reconditioned military helicopters to Syria. Yet sending ships and marines to the coast of Syria also points to an interest that sets Russia aside from all other permanent members of the UN Security Council – it has people on the ground. Rather a lot of people, in fact.
In the first instance, these are the Russian armed services personnel working in Tartous and supporting the use of Russian military equipment by the Syrian armed forces.
Secondly, there are perhaps 30,000 Russians who are married to Syrian citizens and are resident in the country. This is a consequence of decades of close relations between Soviet Russia and Syria under the current president’s father. In Moscow’s calculation, their best chance for a peaceful existence is for Assad to secure a victory over his opponents as quickly as possible. If the opposition were to win power, the nationals of a country which had backed Assad to the hilt, over many years, would face an uncertain future.
Thirdly, Syria is home to between 50,000 and 100,000 Circassians who originally hail from Russian lands around the Black Sea and the Caucasus. The Syrian Circassians were relocated to modern-day Syria in the second half of the nineteenth century, as tsarist Russia expanded. They are one of a number of Syrian minorities who support the Assad government, and most reside in and around Homs, Damascus and Aleppo. Most of those in Homs and the villages surrounding it are now refugees. As members of a community regarded as pro-Assad, they fear the Sunni opposition; yet because they are not part of Assad’s Alawite core, some parts of the Syrian security services also regard them with suspicion.
A few hundred Syrian Circassians have already emigrated to Russia but this trickle could become a stream if violence persists in Syria. Plenty of Circassians already live in Russia’s North Caucasus, in the republics of Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachai-Cherkessia and Adygea, and these are the most likely destination for the Syrian Circassians. Popular sympathy for their plight in those republics runs high, and this is not something that the federal government in Moscow can afford to ignore.
Yet if Russia threw open the door to the Syrian Circassians it would risk exacerbating instability in Kabardino-Balkaria and the other republics. Alongside that regional security problem, there would be a national political one. Putin would have to increase funding to the republics affected – but that would only exacerbate the ill feeling in the rest of Russia about the billions of dollars spent on Chechnya and its neighbours. ‘Stop feeding the Caucasus’ has been a rallying cry for nationalist opposition to Putin, and a rare issue on which the president is on the wrong side of working-class opinion.
The Circassian issue is also sensitive for Putin because it touches on one of his personal projects – the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. The games will take place on land that was originally populated by Circassians, and diaspora groups – with the encouragement of the Georgian government – are hoping to use the Winter Olympics to draw attention towards the so-called ‘Circassian Genocide’. Helping the Syrian Circassians might win Moscow some points with the diaspora, but engagement would be risky too.
In light of all this, it is little wonder that Russia would prefer to see the Syrian opposition crushed and Assad continue to rule for many years to come. It has far more at stake than arms sales, a naval base and a desire to thumb its nose at the US.
Source: IISS
Most of Russia’s motivations for doing so are well known. Firstly, it is determined to ensure there is no Security Council cover for any external effort to topple a sovereign government, whether by military or other means. The principle of non-intervention is one that Moscow is desperate to defend. Secondly, the government of Vladimir Putin has no wish to see another president – in the Middle East or the former Soviet Union – ousted by the mob, for fear the virus could spread further. Thirdly, it fears the regional destabilisation that could accompany Assad’s downfall. And fourthly, Russia has commercial, diplomatic and military ties with the Assad government that would be in jeopardy if the opposition came to power. These interests include arms sales, use of the Tartous naval base, energy-sector investment opportunities and a close diplomatic alignment with Damascus.
The latest dispatch of naval vessels to Syria is on one level a further statement of support for the Assad government and the interests that Russia wishes to defend. So too is the delivery of reconditioned military helicopters to Syria. Yet sending ships and marines to the coast of Syria also points to an interest that sets Russia aside from all other permanent members of the UN Security Council – it has people on the ground. Rather a lot of people, in fact.
In the first instance, these are the Russian armed services personnel working in Tartous and supporting the use of Russian military equipment by the Syrian armed forces.
Secondly, there are perhaps 30,000 Russians who are married to Syrian citizens and are resident in the country. This is a consequence of decades of close relations between Soviet Russia and Syria under the current president’s father. In Moscow’s calculation, their best chance for a peaceful existence is for Assad to secure a victory over his opponents as quickly as possible. If the opposition were to win power, the nationals of a country which had backed Assad to the hilt, over many years, would face an uncertain future.
Thirdly, Syria is home to between 50,000 and 100,000 Circassians who originally hail from Russian lands around the Black Sea and the Caucasus. The Syrian Circassians were relocated to modern-day Syria in the second half of the nineteenth century, as tsarist Russia expanded. They are one of a number of Syrian minorities who support the Assad government, and most reside in and around Homs, Damascus and Aleppo. Most of those in Homs and the villages surrounding it are now refugees. As members of a community regarded as pro-Assad, they fear the Sunni opposition; yet because they are not part of Assad’s Alawite core, some parts of the Syrian security services also regard them with suspicion.
A few hundred Syrian Circassians have already emigrated to Russia but this trickle could become a stream if violence persists in Syria. Plenty of Circassians already live in Russia’s North Caucasus, in the republics of Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachai-Cherkessia and Adygea, and these are the most likely destination for the Syrian Circassians. Popular sympathy for their plight in those republics runs high, and this is not something that the federal government in Moscow can afford to ignore.
Yet if Russia threw open the door to the Syrian Circassians it would risk exacerbating instability in Kabardino-Balkaria and the other republics. Alongside that regional security problem, there would be a national political one. Putin would have to increase funding to the republics affected – but that would only exacerbate the ill feeling in the rest of Russia about the billions of dollars spent on Chechnya and its neighbours. ‘Stop feeding the Caucasus’ has been a rallying cry for nationalist opposition to Putin, and a rare issue on which the president is on the wrong side of working-class opinion.
The Circassian issue is also sensitive for Putin because it touches on one of his personal projects – the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. The games will take place on land that was originally populated by Circassians, and diaspora groups – with the encouragement of the Georgian government – are hoping to use the Winter Olympics to draw attention towards the so-called ‘Circassian Genocide’. Helping the Syrian Circassians might win Moscow some points with the diaspora, but engagement would be risky too.
In light of all this, it is little wonder that Russia would prefer to see the Syrian opposition crushed and Assad continue to rule for many years to come. It has far more at stake than arms sales, a naval base and a desire to thumb its nose at the US.
Source: IISS
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Russia Seeks to Exert More Influence Over Syria Conflict
Russia, the most powerful supporter of Syria’s
embattled government, took new steps on Wednesday to exert its
diplomatic influence over the violent conflict there, inviting both the
Syrian foreign minister and representatives of the opposition to Moscow
for talks this month and warning foreign sympathizers of armed rebels
not to supply them with more weapons.
The Russian steps came as Syria’s state-run media asserted that the
government had begun to comply with the terms of a cease-fire plan
brokered by Kofi Annan, the special envoy of the United Nations and Arab
League. It requires Syrian forces to pull back from major population
centers by Tuesday.
Activist Web sites reported the opposite picture, saying the Syrian
military shelled and shot at targets mostly in and around the cities of
Idlib, Homs and Dara’a, the chronic trouble areas in President Bashar al-Assad’s
13-month-old effort to crush the uprising against him. The Syrian
Observatory for Human Rights, a London-based exile group with contacts
in Syria, said at least 18 people were killed.
The United States, which has led the Western pressure on Mr. Assad to step down and has agreed to provide nonlethal equipment
to the anti-Assad resistance, said it had seen no evidence that the
Syrian government had begun to comply with the cease-fire plan. “What
we’ve seen, frankly, is an intensification of artillery bombardments in
major population centers like Homs and Idlib,” a State Department
spokesman, Mark Toner, told reporters in Washington.
The Russian Foreign Ministry announced on its Twitter account
that the Syrian foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, would hold talks in
Moscow with his counterpart, Sergey V. Lavrov, on Tuesday — the
deadline for compliance with the initial phase of Mr. Annan’s cease-fire
plan — and that representatives of the National Coordination Committee,
an opposition group inside Syria, would visit the Kremlin for talks
April 17-18.
Mr. Lavrov, who has strongly defended Russia’s support for Syria’s
government but has been increasingly critical of Mr. Assad’s behavior,
said during a visit to Azerbaijan on Wednesday that he must comply with
the cease-fire plan. But he also admonished the so-called “Friends of
Syria” group of anti-Assad countries, which met in Turkey with exile
Syrian opposition groups this past weekend, not to provide weapons to
rebel combatants, as some of those countries have suggested.
“Even if the Syrian opposition were armed to the teeth, it would not be
able to beat the government’s forces,” Mr. Lavrov said in remarks
carried by Russian news agencies.
There was anecdotal evidence on Tuesday that Syrian security forces had
reduced their presence in some hotspots in the suburbs of Damascus. In
Saqba, a district 15 minutes east of the Syrian capital where frequent
clashes and protests have taken place, a reporter did not see any tanks
or armored vehicles. But military checkpoints dotted the approach to the district center and
security officers checked all cars and demanded identification of all
young men. Cinderblock shelters and tents had been erected for the
soldiers, suggesting the government foresaw an indefinite crisis. Most shops were open, and people were cleaning and fixing them up.
Shopkeepers said they had kept them closed ever since in a general
strike after a government crackdown two months ago, but were now
reopening as part of a coordinated decision by local protest leaders.
People spoke openly against the government in the shops and streets,
despite the heavy security presence. Abu Fahad, 30, a protest organizer who declined to give his full name
for safety reasons, said in his upscale furniture store in Saqba that
protesters would keep demonstrating until 2014, the end of Mr. Assad’s
term, if necessary.
“Every Friday Prayer means a demonstration for us in Saqba,” he said.
“The regime tries to close all mosques and prevent prayers on Fridays,
but they cannot.”
He said it was the government that was frightened, not the protesters.
“On every corner and street there is a security checkpoint,” he said.
“Not to frighten us, but because the regime is afraid.”
Source: New York Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)