The chief new reality is the de facto coalition among Israel, Egypt, and the Sunni Gulf states. This comprises a potential new source of stability in the region, a stability that has been lacking since the collapse of the Ottoman imperium. The dream of an Arab equivalent of Europe -- a region of independent nation-states united through ethnicity and religion -- lies in ruins. The possibility that it can revived are minimal. Libya, Syria, and Yemen are all failed states and, left to themselves, the UN, or Europe, will remain that way. The fantasy of nation building was punctured by Iraq and Afghanistan. These people are not only incapable of governing themselves, they are incapable of maintaining a viable social system. This role must be filled by an overarching power, as it was by the Ottomans and the European imperialists.
It must be done because we require order. This is not the 19th century. The Jihadis have clearly demonstrated a global reach. They can get at any target anywhere simply by parasitizing well-established Western communications and transportation systems. The sole way to deny them this capability is through control of the failed states that act as incubators for their mujahedin.
...
The two major goals in the Mideast are the defeat of the Jihadis and the denial of Iranian hegemony. The coalition can encompass both, with support from interested Western powers. Despite all the appeasement rhetoric, the Iranian nuclear threat can be shut down in short order. No one has considered the possibility that Israel might utilize tactical nukes fitted to bunker-buster warheads. These would “drill” deeply into the overhanging mountains before detonating, rendering the Iranian nuclear program unsalvageable with little in the way of fallout or residual radiation. This would a bold step on the part of Israel, but existential challenges encourage that kind of thing. Sanction from the Gulf States is likely to be easily obtained.
Iran would attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz, but in the age of fracking, this is nowhere near the threat it once was. Fracking could take up a large part of the oil shortfall within months. There would be a serious economic earthquake, but the West has it coming.
Turning to the Jihadis, the long war, which the U.S. and Europe have proven incapable of maintaining, would probably be best fought by nations in the area. Saudi Arabia has valuable knowledge about these people. Israel has one of the most effective intelligence agencies in the world. Pooling their efforts should bring results that would difficult for outside actors to match. The current collaboration between the Israelis and the Egyptians could act as a model here.
Failed states such as Syria and Yemen are likely to remain non-nations on the Somalia model. As such, they will have to be controlled. Civilized forces will need to enter these degraded pea-patches on an irregular basis on punitive missions, much the same as the British mounted expeditions into Afghanistan and Somalia during the imperial period. (Libya is different, virtually bordering on the West as it does -- it must be brought under control, the sooner the better.)
This is effectively a form of neocolonialism, one that should be carried out by locals with a deep understanding of the stakes. It could of course, be “better,” in the abstract, if Somalis and Syrians could govern themselves, but they can’t, and that’s the end of it. They are a problem, and a new Mideast coalition offers a solution. Such a coalition will share goals with the West: elimination of the Iranian threat, destruction of ISIS and similar Jihadi gangs, and beyond that, a new status quo. While such a solution is far from perfect, it is the best that can be expected from a horrendous situation.
What would the U.S. role be? Basically, everybody’s benign uncle. To act as an honest broker, mentor, and guide for both sides, to ease the natural conflicts between Jewish and Arab interests, to work out strategies and policies, and nudge either side in the right direction.
Even this is asking too much at this point. Obama has, of course, downgraded the U.S. relationship with Israel even as the new modus vivendi has been working itself out -- a remarkable development that he has ignored. There’s nothing that reveals Obama’s utter fatuity more than this.
Of course, if Hillary Clinton becomes President, things might not be any better. What could go wrong?
Ansarullah sources revealed to the FNA that after
they drove all the 40 Saudi embassy guards out of the embassy and
captured the compound, it found a large cache of Israeli-made weapons
and ammunition.
The Yemeni forces also disclosed that they have discovered documents
showing that the US intends to establish a military base on Saudi
Arabia’s Myon Island near Bab al-Mandeb Strait to protect their own
interests and ensure the security of Israel.
The Riyadh government has also asked Tel Aviv for
state-of-the-art weapons to supply the terrorist groups in Yemen and
forces loyal to fugitive President Mansour Hadi.
In April, senior Yemeni officials disclosed that the Riyadh government has used Israeli-made weapons in its airstrikes on Yemen.
"The Saudis are using Israeli weapons in their raids on Yemen," Yemeni Army Commander Taher Rasoul Zadami told FNA.
The reports said Ansarullah took control of the
Saudi embassy in Sana'a in reaction to the Saudis' continued attacks on
residential areas and hospitals alongside army positions in Yemen.
How convenient.... If only it were true... there would be a much bigger story: There are very few weapons that Israel may sell without American approval (because of the military relations between the two countries - recall this). I guess Iran is afraid of that hot potato.
The “sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq” that Barack Obama and
Joe Biden hailed as one of Obama’s “great achievements” in 2014 has
regressed into chaos as a result of Obama’s premature withdrawal of
American troops. But it isn’t just Iraq. Syria is the closest thing to
Hell on Earth. Iran is working away on nuclear weapons and delivery
systems. Yemen has fallen to Iran’s proxies. Saudi Arabia is looking for
nuclear weapons to counter Iran’s. ISIS occupies an area the size of
Great Britain. Libya, its dictator having been gratuitously overthrown
by feckless Western governments that had no plan for what would follow,
is a failed state and terrorist playground.
It seems as though things couldn’t possibly get worse, but they
almost certainly will. We are seeing the fruit of a set of policies that
were based on the false premise that problems in the Middle East are
mostly the fault of the United States. Not only were such policies
misbegotten, they have been executed incompetently. The resulting
collapse is occurring with sickening speed.
John doesn't even mention that none of these hotspots is President Obama's priority for the Middle East. Indeed, the President's priority for the Middle East - indeed for all his foreign policy - is the creation of a 'Palestinian state,' which he apparently sees as a panacea for all his foreign policy miscues. He has gone so far as to threaten the new Netanyahu government with the withdrawal of support for Israel at the United Nations.
That'll stop Islamic State, clean up Syria and convince Iran not to develop nuclear weapons....
U.S. naval forces in the Red Sea this month boarded a freighter
suspected of delivering Iranian weapons to Houthi rebels in Yemen,
American military officials said.
The destroyer USS Sterett’s search of the Panamanian-flagged Saisaban
on April 1 came up empty. But the officials said it marked the U.S.
Navy’s first boarding operation in an expanding campaign to ensure Iran
doesn’t supply game-changing weapons such as surface-to-air missiles
that would threaten Saudi-led airstrikes on the Houthis.
COMMENTARY: Publicized USN interdiction efforts such as these serve to
put Iran on notice that potential arms deliveries by sea in support of
Ansarullah will actively be pursued.
Ship details for Panamanian-flagged Saisaban cargo ship... (continue reading here).
Because after all, if the sanctions go away, someone will still have to try to stop Iranian arms smuggling....
Moadim l'Simcha, a happy holiday to all of you, and a reminder that because I am in Israel, today is an intermediate day of the holiday, on which being on the computer is allowed.
Iran is certainly acting in the spirit of its newly-inked deal with Barack Hussein Obama, who declined to deter Iran's support of terror worldwide: Iran is financing the reconstruction of Hamas terror tunnels destroyed by Israel during last summer's war.
It is also funding new missile supplies to
replenish stocks used to bombard residential neighbourhoods in Israel
during the war, code-named Operation Protective Edge by Israel.
The renewed funding is a sign that the two old allies are putting behind thema rift caused by the conflict in Syria, where Shia Iran is backing President Bashar al-Assad against Hamas’s mainly Sunni allies.
Hamas’s leader, Khaled Meshaal, who left Damascus for Qatar after
falling out with the Assad regime, has often fought with Hamas’s
military wing over the strength of the Iranian connection.
However, with the Sunni Arab world joining forces against Iran, led by
Saudi Arabia and President Abdelfattah el-Sisi of Egypt, who are both
hostile to Hamas, the Palestinian militant group has been left little
option but to accept the Iranian largesse.
At the same time,
Iran’s overseas operations arm, the Al-Quds force, led by its
charismatic general Qassem Suleimani, has been consolidating a broad
hold over the Middle East.
It is backing the Shia Houthi rebels
fighting the internationally recognised government in Yemen, and
actively supporting the Shia-dominated Iraqi government’s attempts to
recapture the northern city of Tikrit, the former stronghold of Sunni
dictator Saddam Hussein, from Islamic State (Isil) fighters.
However, Iran may have been forced to pull back, at least in the latter
case, senior diplomats say, adding there is growing evidence that the
Iranians are overplaying their hand.
No one should be surprised at this: The Obama administration has essentially given Iran a green light to become the dominant force in the Middle East. Israel will have to act alone (possibly with behind the scenes support from the Gulf States) to stop Iran.
The U.S. Department of State warns U.S. citizens of the high security
threat level in Yemen due to terrorist activities and civil unrest. The
Department urges U.S. citizens to defer travel to Yemen and those U.S.
citizens currently living in Yemen to depart immediately.
On August 6, 2013, the Department of State
ordered the departure of non-emergency U.S. government personnel from
Yemen due to the continued potential for terrorist attacks.
U.S. citizens currently in Yemen should depart.
As staff levels at the Embassy are restricted, our ability to assist
U.S. citizens in an emergency and provide routine consular services
remains limited and may be further constrained by the fluid security
situation. This supersedes the Travel Warning for Yemen issued on July
16, 2013.
On Monday, ABC News reported that the intercepted 'chatter' of al-Qaeda operatives - which led to a shutdown of US embassies all over the Middle East and to a worldwide terror warning - was discussion of a new and harder-to-stop method of suicide bombing: Implanting the bomb inside the terrorist's body (Hat Tip: Legal Insurrection).
The senior U.S. official said there is concern about devices that could be implanted inside the body of a terrorist.
“We are concerned about surgically implanted devices,” they said.
“These are guys who have developed the techniques to defeat our
detection methods.”
The official also said authorities were stunned that the group broke
“operational security” — meaning they talked likely knowing it would be
picked up by intercepts.
The man behind the technique, and who may have been the target of Tuesday's drone strike, is Ibrahim al-Asiri. Asiri, a Saudi (what else?), is al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's chief bombmaker, and was behind the bomb hidden in the underwear of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in December 2009.
If that's not enough, ABC News is also now reporting that al-Qaeda has developed a method of dipping clothes into a liquid that will make them explosive when they dry.
Though the Transportation Security Administration has long been
concerned about liquid explosives being used in potential devices -- as
it was during the failed Christmas Day bombing in 2009
-- the new tactic allows terrorists to dip ordinary clothing into the
liquid to make the clothes themselves into explosives once dry.
"It's ingenious," one of the officials said.
Another senior official said that the tactic would not be detected by current security measures.
The officials said the new technique is believed to have been developed
by the Yemen-based al Qaeda affiliate al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula
(AQAP), home to notorious alleged bomb maker Ibrahim al-Asiri. Al-Asiri
is suspected of being the mastermind behind several devious explosive
devices including the underwear bomb and surgically implanted body bombs.
Al-Asiri was listed today among Yemen's 25 top terrorists, who the
Yemeni government said were planning to carry out operations in the
capital, Sana'a. The Yemeni government is offering 5 million Yemeni
rials, or $23,000, for information leading to the capture of any of the
terrorists.
Wait a minute - didn't al-Qaeda die with Osama Bin Laden and President Hussein Obama's declaring 'victory' in the war on terror? Not exactly....
Nada Bakos, a former CIA analyst who was part of the team that hunted
Osama bin Laden for years, told ABC News that any suggestion al Qaeda as
a whole was down and out and is now seeing a resurgence is wrong.
Instead, she said the group has just been undergoing a metamorphosis.
"An ideology has tentacles. That's why it's hard to predict how or if it
will grow," she said. "Each of these groups [al Qaeda affiliates] are
funded and operate independently, but they all share the same
ideological platform that central al Qeada has propagated since the
1990s."
Seth Jones, associate director of the International Security and Defense
Policy Center at the RAND Corporation, testified before Congress last
month that despite the "weakness" of central al Qaeda, "there has been a
net expansion in the number and geographic scope of al Qaeda's
affiliates and allies over the past decade, indicating that al Qaeda and
its brand are far from defeated."
Michael Scheuer, a former CIA officer who led the hunt for bin Laden
before his retirement in 2004, went further, telling ABC News that he
believed al Qaeda really hasn't changed since bin Laden's death.
"I think the guys on the ground [local affiliate commanders], day-to-day
tactical decisions were made there, where they always have been," he
said. "Core al Qaeda lays down the guidelines to keep everybody pointed
at the enemy."
Scheuer said he believes al Qaeda is more dangerous under its currently
leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, than it was under bin Laden. Zawahiri,
Scheuer said, may settle for smaller U.S.-based operations that would
have a much smaller body count than a 9/11-type operation that bin Laden
aspired to repeat.
There's only one way to stop terrorists - the Israeli way. The problem is that with these methods they could blow themselves up without ever leaving the airport. But then that wouldn't be as spectacular and may not kill as many people.
Viral video: 11-year old Yemeni girl runs away from home to avoid forced marriage
11-year old Nada al-Ahdal has run away from home because her parents are trying to force her into a marriage.
Here's an interview with her. Let's go to the videotape. More after the video.
That video has more than 5,000,000 hits in two days, which is pretty amazing. But what it doesn't say is to whom her parents want to marry her off and why. Is it money or something else?
The answers to those questions are not entirely clear, but this post implies that it probably had to do with money, and that the suitor was at least an adult.
A video,
posted on YouTube, shows an 11-year-old Yemeni girl called Nada
al-Ahdal recounting how she escaped her parents who wanted to force her
to marry. Nada comes from a modest family and is one of eight siblings.
Fortunately for her, her uncle Abdel Salam al-Ahdal, a montage and
graphics technician in a TV station, decided to take her in when she was
three years old, to live with him and his aging mother, away from her
parents.
Nada was not an only child at home. Her uncle had also taken his
other nephew under his wing, as the boy’s own father couldn’t afford his
son’s medical requirements. Abdel Salam was thus responsible for
bringing up two children. He personally took care of keeping them, and
his frail mother, clean and well-fed.
Nada grew up in this caring environment, went to school, and learned
English during the summer vacation. She has her own Facebook page, was a
gifted singer, and took part in musicals. However, her happiness was
cut short when someone came to ask her parents for her hand in marriage.
The man, a Yemeni expatriate living in Saudi Arabia, did not care about
the girl’s age. Her parents were happy because the prospective groom
worked abroad and was rich.
Abdel Salam tells NOW: “When I heard about the groom, I panicked.
Nada was not even 11 years old; she was exactly 10 years and 3 months. I
could not allow her to be married off and have her future destroyed,
especially since her aunt was forced to marry at 13 and burnt herself. I
did all I could to prevent that marriage. I called the groom and told
him Nada was no good for him. I told him she did not wear the veil and
he asked if things were going to remain like that. I said ‘yes, and I
agree because she chose it.’ I also told him that she liked singing and
asked if he would remain engaged to her.”
The groom recanted the engagement and told the girl’s parents he did
not want their daughter anymore. Nada’s parents, looking forward to a
hefty bride price, were disappointed.
Nada had an 18 year-old sister who had been engaged many times. Her
parents accepted each new proposal and took a partial downpayment for a
bride price. They would then postpone the marriage until the groom had
enough money, eventually ending each engagement, not returning the
money. The same story would start all over again with another suitor,
and so it was that she had had nine fiancés.
After Abdel Salam succeeded in warding off Nada’s first
husband-to-be, her parents came from Zubaid on a visit to Sana’a and
asked for their daughter to stay with them until mid-Ramadan. Abdel
Salam agreed only to learn from the parents days later that Nada had
disappeared.
At one point Nada escaped and tried to return to her uncle. When she
got back to Sana'a, she was scared he would take her back to her mother.
He found out afterwards that Nada’s mother wanted to marry her off
again but did not tell him as she feared he would “scare away” the
suitor as he had done the first time around.
Yemen's government said the arms intercepted aboard the ship
off the country's coast also included military grade explosives,
rocket-propelled grenades and bomb-making equipment, according
to a statement by its embassy in Washington.
A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity,
confirmed the operation was coordinated with the U.S. Navy and
that a Navy destroyer was nearby.
A second official told Reuters the intercepted shipment was
believed to have been from Iran and destined for insurgents,
likely Houthis.
"This demonstrates the ever pernicious Iranian meddling in
other countries in the region," said the second U.S. official,
who also spoke on condition of anonymity.
Iran denies any interference in Yemen's affairs.
...
Yemen's government said in a statement the shipment was
intercepted in Yemeni waters, close to the Arabian Sea. It said
Yemeni Coast Guard officials boarded the vessel, which flew
multiple flags and had eight Yemeni crew members on board.
"Authorities are continuing to investigate the vessel's
shipping route by analyzing navigation records found on board
the ship," the statement said.
Israel Radio reports (12:00 pm - sorry but I'm out this afternoon and prepared posts in advance) that there are riots once again outside the US embassy in Cairo, and in a new location, outside the US embassy in Sana'a, Yemen. The riots are once again being blamed on the movie, which as it turns out was made by Egyptian Christian Copts and not by dual citizen Israeli-American Jews.
Sam Becile, the supposed film maker, is a fiction. There is no such person.
Anyone else think Iran could be playing a role in the rioting to distract attention from their rapidly advancing nuclear weapons program? Consider this.
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Sunday, July 8.
1) No order for the court
There a front page story in the New York Times, Arab Uprisings Point Up Flaws in Global Court, that makes some legitimate points. However, the closer one looks the bias of the article becomes clearer. After noting that the former President of Yemen, Saleh evaded prosecution of the court the article continues:
Now, as the world confronts increasing evidence of atrocities on a much vaster scale in Syria as President Bashar al-Assad’s government battles a growing rebellion, there are signs that Mr. Assad is likely to evade prosecution, much as Mr. Saleh has. The men have not been prosecuted because they have powerful allies, underlining what critics say are crucial flaws in the court’s setup. That now threatens to undermine the still-fragile international consensus that formed the basis for the court’s creation in 2002: that leaders should be held accountable for crimes against their own people. Already, the failure to act against some leaders challenged by the Arab Spring is emboldening critics who see the court as just another manifestation of a deeply undemocratic international order. So-called justice, they say, is reserved for outcast leaders, including an assortment of African officials from weak states with few powerful patrons.
Later the article observes:
The International Criminal Court began working a decade ago with very low expectations and little support from the major world powers. Three of the five veto-holding members of the Security Council — the United States, Russia and China — refused to subject themselves to its jurisdiction. Despite this, it has turned into a touchstone for justice-seekers so powerful that The Hague has become their desired destination for autocrats everywhere. The Security Council allowed the court to investigate Sudan’s president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, who ended up being indicted on charges of war crimes in Darfur, though the court has been unable to apprehend him. ... But the court has not taken action in any other Arab uprising, in no small part because of the ties between the countries involved and veto-holding members of the Security Council. Bahrain and Yemen are allies of the United States, which is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court. Russia and China, neither of which is a signatory, are close to Syria’s government, and are likely to block any attempt to refer a case to the court.
Note the blame assigned to the United States, Russia and China. However, why hasn't the indictment of Bashir led to any further action. At the time the warrant for the arrest of Bashir was announced, he was hosted at an Arab League summit. The Washington Post observed at the time:
So it was interesting to see what else was in the latest statement issued by the kings, princes and authoritarian presidents of the Middle East and North Africa. First there was a call on "the international community to prosecute those responsible" for alleged "war crimes" committed by Israel in its recent offensive in Gaza. Then came an ardent defense of Sudanese dictator Omar Hassan al-Bashir -- who was welcomed to the Doha summit despite an outstanding arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court on multiple war crimes charges. "We stress our solidarity with Sudan and our rejection of the decision" of the ICC, said the communique, which Mr. Bashir welcomed in a bombastic address to the summit plenary. Leader after leader declared fealty. "We must also take a decisive stance of solidarity alongside fraternal Sudan and President Omar al-Bashir," said Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Mr. Abbas is hoping that the Obama administration will pressure Israel to stop building "illegal" settlements in the West Bank; the next time he utters the phrase "double standard" in the presence of a U.S. diplomat, we suggest a query about Mr. Bashir.
There's no word in the New York Times article about the Arab League (or OIC) rejection of the ICC's authority in this case.
But other situations have escaped the court’s reach. At the bloody end of the civil war in Sri Lanka in 2009, 200,000 civilians were trapped on a beach between government forces and the Tamil Tigers. Tens of thousands are believed to have been killed, but the International Criminal Court has never investigated the case. Sri Lanka is a close ally of China. Charges of crimes in Gaza will never be investigated, international justice experts say, because of the ties between the United States and Israel.
According to this article the only countries who help international criminals escape justice are those who have vetoes at the UN. No responsibility is assigned to the Arab League. The article also doesn't mention that the court has no mechanism for preventing unjust prosecutions if enough tyrannies band to together to insist on an investigation.
2) Of the Presbyterian General Assembly and wheel chair tours
The scheduled deliberations regarding Middle East-related overtures have come to an end at the PC (USA)’s General Assembly in Pittsburgh. The assembly approved a overture calling for an end to violence in Syria by a wide margin. Among other things, the overture called on the United States to “refrain from military intervention in Syria.” It is highly unlikely the General Assembly will revisit any of the issues related to the Middle East between now and the final gavel, which will fall tomorrow morning. Divestment is dead, for now, in the PC (USA).
Accessibility also varied among the tourist sites we visited, but generally was pretty good. The Israeli government is trying very hard to make things accessible for people with disabilities without destroying the ancient sites they came to see. Our first stop was Caesarea National Park, where you can see the port built by King Herod and the place where Paul set sail to preach to communities around the Mediterranean. This was very accessible. Then north to the town of Nazareth, a large, thriving tourist city, we had to go up a steep hill to get to the Church of the Annunciation, which is built over the place where Mary is said to have been visited and told she would bear a child. Unfortunately, there were no cut-out ramps, the road was a bit bumpy, and we had to take our chairs up the narrow street with cars coming down the other way.
While a politicized Christian group sat in judgment of Israel, others found Israel to be supportive of their needs.
3) Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name
There may be an alternative motive for Al Jazeera's program absurdly charging Israel with poisoning Yasser Arafat: for some reason Al Jazeera is making an effort to rehabilitate Arafat's image. It's true that many in the media don't consider Arafat to be a villain, but, at worst, an ambiguous figure. (See TimesWatch for some examples.)
Again, in my interpretation of things, Sheikh Yassin was the leader of a movement that was at the time producing havoc among Israelis, whether a thousand Israelis killed -- no, a thousand, was it? Or throughout the Second Intifada, and therefore, you were getting rid of a leader that was sending directly or indirectly, or inspiring people, or giving legitimacy to this mass campaign of suicide terrorism. That was the way that one could understand it. But Arafat was somebody that was negotiating with you. He was negotiating. He was the one that if you give a sober interpretation of his role throughout the last 20 years, you would see that he was the man with whom you need to have a kind of peace deal; otherwise, there is not going to be any kind of deal. So I draw a line between the way Israel fought leaders of Hamas during the Second Intifada and the person of Arafat. Yes, but all this does not necessarily lead to a physical assassination. They were trying to diminish his political clout, his political influence. And I saw it also as a way -- frankly, again, to me, it remains to be proved that Israel got rid physically of Arafat. I saw this campaign to appoint the prime minister, et cetera as part of the reforms that Israel and others were seeing as a prerequisite for a viable peace process. And frankly, I always saw that this was one shortcoming of the Palestinian National Movement. This is where Zionism had the upper hand.
What was Ben Ami thinking? True, he rejects the charge that Israel killed Arafat physically. But he seemingly is accepting the notion that Israel (unjustly) killed Arafat politically. No doubt Al Jazeera's viewers appreciate the subtlety of Ben Ami's distinction. Still we have a former high ranking Israeli government official saying that Arafat was sincere and unfairly demonized.
Another companion report was an interview with Mohammed Rashid.
Last time when I saw Sharon, it was -- there was an attack in Netanya. It was a big attack. It caused some 31 Israeli victims. I was on the way to the meeting, and I thought it is just wise to call it off and go back. I spoke to Omri Sharon, and he told me, “No. The prime minister waiting for you. Keep going.” And almost five hours meeting with him, uh, he was avoiding touching on the, on the event. In the last half an hour, I told him, “Mr. Prime Minister, we have to find a solution to stop attacks like these, more attacks like this in the future, and more reactions from the Israeli side on the Palestinians.” Then he told me, “I wasn’t willing to discuss this issue with you, but let me tell you. Tell your boss, next time it will be really tough. And I’m not sure there will be, after the next time, there will be any more time. So I’m fed up with this. This should stop. I hold him personally responsible, and I want, I want him -- let him do what he likes to do, but I want a responsible prime minister to work with me; otherwise, there is nothing, nothing will move.” So for, for me, this was more than political threat, and especially the tanks were getting closer to Arafat’s bedroom. I, I don’t think there was more than five meters’ distance between the tanks and his bedroom. So it was obvious another attack could lead to catastrophe, even a direct physical catastrophe. But it was obvious, time is ticking and Arafat’s days becoming really short and short. I would say the decision had been made in 2002 to get rid of him, politically and physically.
Rashid, just a few weeks ago, was convicted in absentia of embezzling millions from the Palestinian Authority. Now Al Jazeera is rehabilitating him, apparently at the expense of Mahmoud Abbas, allowing Rashid to appear as a defender of Arafat's legacy. What is Al Jazeera's agenda here? And why are so many lending uncritical support to Al Jazeera?
Mona Eltahawy pens a lengthy article about the status of women in the Arab-Muslim world, which she is free to do because she lives in the United States. I urge you to read the whole thing - it's quite blunt.
I find it interesting that she does not mention Israel, which is really too bad, because the contrast between how Israel treats its women and how they are treated in countries like Egypt, Yemen and Saudi Arabia is stunning. I also wonder whether we would already have peace with the Arab-Muslim world if there were women in positions of power there. I would bet that we would at least be closer.
Don't hold your breath thinking we're going to find out anytime soon. The fact that Ms. Eltahawy does her writing from the US tells you all you need to know about that.
American analyst Daniel Pipes has warned the Knesset Immigration Absorption and Diaspora Affairs Committee that Muslims facing persecution in Egypt, Syria and Yemen as a result of the 'Arab spring' may make their way to Israel as a refuge.
Their citizens might look for greener pastures in Israel in a way similar to the infiltration of tens of thousands of sub- Saharan Africans to the country over the past few years, giving rise to a “Muslim aliya,” he said.
“There could be a new era.
Particularly, the Sinai and Golan areas may see an immigration very different than what it’s seen,” he said.
Shlomo Brom, a senior research fellow and director at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, disagrees.
“That a few Syrian refugees might come here in small numbers might happen – we saw that during Black September,” he said, referring to a few dozen Palestinian gunmen in 1970 who sought refuge in Israel – their avowed enemy – rather than be captured by Jordanian forces during a crackdown. “But if anything like that happens it will be on a very small scale.”
Brom said the potential for a mass migration of Muslims from places as far away as Yemen, who would have to travel over 1,600 kilometers and risk being shot at the border to reach Israel, was “completely unsubstantiated.”
“It doesn’t seem to be based on anything,” he said.
I don't think Brom is being realistic. According to the Interior Ministry, between 1500 and 2000 refugees per month enter Israel, mostly from Sudan and Eritrea, both of which are much further away than Egypt or Syria, and comparable to Yemen in distance. It definitely could happen. Are we ready for it? I doubt it. We'll just let them all in on humanitarian grounds and let the problems fester until later.
Oh - and I hope you all notice the irony of where the Egyptians and Syrians who hate us and want to destroy us run to when the chips are down. Unfortunately, that will be lost on the 'human rights' groups.
Reports of widespread hunger have emerged in recent weeks in Libya and Syria. On Wednesday, Yemen was officially added to the list of food trouble spots when a United Nation mission visiting Yemen called on the international community to quickly provide humanitarian aid to the impoverished country, pushed to the verge of starvation by five months of protests and armed insurrection.
"Before the unrest began, seven million Yemenis were forced to reduce their number of daily meals from three to one," Aziz Al-Athwari, Yemen country director at Oxfam, a British aid agency, told The Media Line. "Although we have no current statistics, that number has certainly increased since fighting began."
Seven million is equal to nearly a third of Yemen’s population. The UN’s World Food Program (WFP) recently launched an emergency operation to feed 1.7 million severely food insecure Yemenis. The poorest country in the Middle East, Yemen has been rocked by deadly protests since late January demanding President Ali Abdullah Saleh's ouster.
All three Middle East countries suffered from food and water shortfalls even before unrest broke out, preventing inputs like seeds and fertilizer reaching farmers and severing transportation links to markets. But with fighting in Libya and Yemen nearly reaching their fifth month and unrest in Syria nearing its fourth, economic paralysis has become the norm.
And as the fighting goes on, world food prices are rising. In June they reached a near record led by sharp increase in sugar prices outweighed a slump in the grains complex, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said on Thursday.
The FAO’s food price index, which covers prices of a basket of commodities, rose 1% to 234 points last month, up 39% compared with the same time last year and just below the record 238 points hit in February.
Food prices are likely to stay at historically-high—and volatile—levels well into 2012, the FAO said.
The effects of an American decline on the Middle East
Shmuel Bar has a lengthy and important piece on the consequences of the decline of American power in the Middle East. Declining American power - which Bar hints is largely the result of choices made by the Obama administration - is leading the exact opposite of the results that the Obami wanted.
I have reproduced some excerpts below, but I suggest that you read the whole thing.
The revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya were the result of developments within the countries themselves: deep economic and social malaise and the perception of the loss of domestic deterrence by ossified regimes led by aging leaders. However, the popular perception that the United States had abandoned its erstwhile allies to support those revolutions facilitated their spread to other theaters. This turnabout in American policy is not seen in the region as reflecting American power though intervention, but rather the decline of American power, manifested in a policy of “bandwagoning” after years of proactive American policy. Clearly, the decline of American projection of power in the region will have as profound an effect as the projection of American power had at its height.
The policies of the United States under the Obama administration have given rise to a broad perception in the region that the United States is no longer willing to play the role of guarantor of the security of its allies there; America is indeed “speaking softly” but has neither the present intention nor the future willpower to wield “a big stick” if push comes to shove. This perception is reflected in seven, key interrelated regional issues: (1) Islam and jihadi terrorism; (2) revolution and democratization in the region; (3) nuclear proliferation; (4) Iran; (5) the Israeli-Arab peace process; (6) Iraq; and (7) Af-Pak. In all these issues, the U.S. is perceived as searching for the path of least resistance, lowering its strategic profile, and attempting to accommodate the de facto powers in the region. In all these areas, the United States is projecting an aversion to proactive action, disinclination to project power, and lack of resolve to support its allies. Remaining American allies in the region realize that they cannot rely on the United States and must adapt themselves to pressures of the masses, predominance of radical ideologies, and Iranian strategic hegemony.
...
The focus on nuclear disarmament in a world that seems rushing toward an era of hyper-proliferation seems somewhat inconsistent with reality. It is unrealistic to believe that the countries of the Middle East may forgo acquisition of their own nuclear weapons in return for American-extended assurances — particularly when the confidence in American support has been so drastically shaken by the abandoning of its erstwhile allies in Tunisia and Egypt. The potential for availability of nuclear know-how and materials from Pakistan and North Korea is likely to increase. There is no doubt that under such conditions supply will breed demand and vice versa. The administrations counter-proliferation policy has no remedy for this scenario.
Iran. Meanwhile, the perceived democratic uprisings in the Arab Middle East should not create the impression that the “Green Revolution” option in Iran is still on the table. Ironically, had the U.S. supported the “Green Revolution” in Iran, at least to the extent it did for the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, it may have been able to keep that movement viable. The conventional wisdom that Western support for the Iranian opposition is counterproductive will probably restrain the administration from expressing the type of support it expressed vis-à-vis the Arab rebellions. It is, however, this stark contrast between the American response to the unrest in Iran as opposed to the Tunisian and Egyptian (and, mutatis mutandis, Libyan) cases that reinforces the perception in the region that the U.S. has adopted an active policy not only of abandoning its old allies, but also of courting the Iranian regime and its proxies. The transfer of American support to the Iranian supported Maleki in Iraq and the lukewarm response to Hezbollah’s takeover of Lebanon are seen as further proof of this policy. The retraction of the military option by senior American officials has led to a perception that the U.S. has already reconciled itself to a nuclear Iran (at best) or even is realigning its interest in the region to accommodate Iranian predominance.5 The outcome of the administration’s engagement policy to date has been to encourage Iran to make more strident and provocative moves toward a nuclear capability. The sanctions regime creates an illusion of action in consensus, but few truly believe that it will achieve the necessary effect.6 While the U.S. can claim success of its engagement policy as a holding tactic, delaying Iran’s crossing the threshold, however, does not delay the process of decline in the willingness to rely on the United States. The cumulative impression of American reluctance to confront Iran out of fear of Iranian reprisal exacerbates the concerns in the region that the pro-Western countries will not be able to rely, when the chips are down, on the United States.
The case for continuing this policy is primarily the absence of alternatives and particularly the potential consequences of an Iranian retaliation to a military strike. The argument against military action (or even threat of military action or perceived support for an Israeli strike) is based on the assessment that such action would lead to severe reactions in the Muslim world, would damage friendly regimes, and inspire terrorist activities against the U.S., and it will be met with a broad Iranian military response, ignite a war between Iran and the Gulf States, cause a steep rise in energy prices, endanger American troops in Iran and Afghanistan, and give the Iranian regime the opportunity to make short shrift of the “Green Revolution” opposition. However, behind this assessment lies the political truth that the United States does not have the willpower for another military adventure in the Middle East.7 The administration also seems to believe that Iran does not really intend to break out with a military nuclear capability but will suffice with being a “threshold nuclear power” along the lines of the Japanese model. This assessment leads it to redefine its objectives regarding the Iranian threat: from the complete prevention of a “nuclear” Iran to the acceptance of Iran as a nuclear threshold state, while convincing Tehran not to cross the threshold.
However, these assessments are not shared by most of the parties in the region. There is broad anticipation in the region that Iran will not stop at the threshold and that the consequences of military action are far less catastrophic than those of a nuclear Iran. Nevertheless, there is little or no challenge within the U.S. administration to these assumptions. This also contributes to the perception in the region that the administration has reconciled itself to a nuclear Iran, believing that it can be contained.
...
By distancing itself from Israel and by lowering its profile in the Middle East in general, the administration also distances itself from influence on the peace process. The image of American power in the region is an important component of Israel’s own deterrent image. This is expressed in the very image of American capacity to act in the region to support its allies and in the assumption of a strategic alliance and special relationship between the U.S. and Israel. The erosion of the image of American power is not due to the perception of American capabilities per se, but to the perception of willingness of the U.S. to act in the region to support its allies, buttressed by a perceived decline in U.S. economic preeminence. Erosion of the image of support for allies in general and for Israel in particular will have a detrimental effect on Israel’s deterrence. The erosion of Israel’s deterrence will have, in turn, a detrimental effect on that of the United States.
...
If Iran is perceived as having crossed the nuclear threshold it will have “won” against the pressures of the international community. It will become a model for radical movements throughout the Muslim world and will be on its way to achieving its desired hegemony in the region. A prime example may be renewing its call for “leaving the security of the Gulf in the hands of the Gulf countries themselves” — a euphemism for Iranian hegemony without American or British presence. In this demand, Iran will be able to leverage the very failure of the U.S. to prevent Iran from going nuclear, and the regional image of the Obama administration as conciliatory towards Iran will diminish any faith that the countries of the region may have in American guarantees. The Iranian ability to employ subversion will also make it difficult for those regimes to continue to rely on the “infidel” to defend them against (Muslim) Iran. Other consequences will be felt in the heart of the Middle East; the chances of weaning Syria from the Iranian orbit and promoting stability in Lebanon, where Iran’s surrogate — Hezbollah — has already become the key power broker, will become even slimmer. Hamas, Iran’s Palestinian proxy, will feel that it has a longer leash. The chances that the Palestinian Authority will be willing to take bold steps towards a peace agreement with Israel will also wane.
More than 30 people were killed in Sanaa, Yemen on Friday, and more than 100 (some reports say 200) were wounded after troops opened fire on demonstrators in Yemen's capital.
According to witnesses, pro-regime "thugs" opened fire on protesters calling for the ouster of President Ali Abdullah Saleh from houses close to the square at Sanaa University.
Medics said more than 30 were killed and more than 100 wounded.
"Most of the wounds were to the head, neck and chest," one medic said.
Thousands of people have camped out in the square since February 21, demanding the departure of Saleh, who has been in power since 1978.
The Friday bloodbath came after five Yemeni protesters were wounded in an attack on Wednesday night by masked men on the Sanaa University sit-in.
Anti-government activists told AFP that the attackers wielding guns, clubs and daggers were "thugs" loyal to the regime.
Witnesses said that dozens of people were injured when police and loyalists of the ruling General People's Congress party attacked protesters in the square with live rounds and tear gas on Sunday.
How many no-fly zones can the West impose at once in the Arab world?
If this is what they do to their own people, imagine what they would do to us Jews if God forbid they ever got the chance.
Doctors from the scene of violent anti-government protests in Yemen’s capital Tuesday night said that what was originally thought to be tear gas fired by government forces on demonstrators might instead have been a form of nerve gas, which is forbidden under international law.
Military personnel opened fire and used what was originally assumed to be tear gas to disperse a group of demonstrators who were trying to bring additional tents into the protest area outside Sanaa University.
According to witnesses, the soldiers fired warning shots into the air before shooting gas — and in some cases live bullets — into the crowd, killing one and injuring at least 50.
Earlier reports indicated that the gas used was tear gas, but doctors who have been treating the wounded refuted that claim today.
“The material in this gas makes people convulse for hours. It paralyzes them. They couldn’t move at all. We tried to give them oxygen but it didn’t work,” said Amaar Nujaim, a field doctor who works for Islamic Relief.
“We are seeing symptoms in the patient’s nerves, not in their respiratory systems. I’m 90 percent sure its nerve gas and not tear gas that was used,” said Sami Zaid, a doctor at the Science and Technology Hospital in Sanaa.
Here's a video of a demonstration from Yemen on Saturday with a helpful English translation.
Let's go to the videotape.
Yemen is one of the countries where the Obama administration is wishing the demonstrators will go peacefully off into the sunset. That does not appear likely.
I want to tell you a bit about what's been going on in Yemen today, because things have really heated up there, but first here's a live video feed from the capital, Sanaa.
President Ali Abdullah Saleh's allegations, unprecedented in their harshness, signaled a growing rift with the United States that could hurt a joint campaign against the al-Qaida terror network in Yemen.
Saleh's comments Tuesday, including charges that the U.S. Embassy in the capital of Sanaa is giving instructions to the protesters, appeared to be part of an attempt to silence the calls for his resignation. Saleh has come under mounting pressure to step down since anti-government protests erupted a month ago.
In another sign of defiance, Saleh fired five of Yemen's 22 provincial governors Tuesday, a government official said. Three of the governors were dismissed for criticizing Saleh's crackdown on protesters, said the official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the reasons for the decison.
Opposition parties joined for the first time Tuesday, and organizers said they brought hundreds of thousands into the streets in cities across Yemen for the largest turnout yet.
In Sanaa, tens of thousands rallied near the university, chanting "the people want the downfall of the regime."
...
Yemen is a key battleground against al-Qaida, and Saleh has been a weak, but important partner for Washington. His government, which receives millions of dollars in U.S. military aid, has allowed American drone strikes on al-Qaida targets.
However, in a speech to about 500 students and academics at Sanaa University, Saleh appeared to be turning on his ally, claiming the U.S., along with Israel, is behind the protest movement.
"I am going to reveal a secret," he said. "There is an operations room in Tel Aviv with the aim of destabilizing the Arab world. The operations room is in Tel Aviv and run by the White House," he said.
He said opposition figures meet regularly with the U.S. ambassador in Sanaa to coordinate efforts.
"Regrettably those (opposition figures) are sitting day and night with the American ambassador where they hand him reports and he gives them instructions," Saleh alleged.
"The Americans also talk with the government officials about this (the protests), but they tell them `allow these people to demonstrate in the streets'," Saleh said. "We say that this is a Zionist agenda."
The wave of political unrest sweeping across the Arab world is a "conspiracy that serves Israel and the Zionists," he added.
Saleh accused President Barack Obama of meddling in the affairs of Arab countries. "Why is he interfering? Is he the president of the United States or the president of the Arab world?" Saleh said.
On Tuesday, a cleric associated with al-Qaeda called for an Islamic state in Yemen.
The call by Sheik Abdul Majid al-Zindani seemed a marked contrast to the upheaval that brought down the leaders of Tunisia and Egypt and threatens the rulers of Libya, Bahrain, Oman, and Yemen where uprisings have been seen as secular and inspired by democratic goals.
Mr. Zindani’s appearance coincided with an unusual display of anti-American sentiment by Mr. Saleh, who accused Washington and Israel of fomenting unrest to destabilize the Arab world — an accusation that seemed more remarkable because the United States has been Mr. Saleh’s most powerful Western backer during his three decades in power.
“From Tunis to the Sultanate of Oman,” Mr. Saleh said, the wave of protest is “managed by Tel Aviv and under the supervision of Washington,” he said.
Soon after he spoke, antigovernment protesters took to the streets, backed for the first time by opposition parties who on Monday rejected a proposal from Mr. Saleh to form a unity government.
...
As around 3,000 antigovernment demonstrators gathered, Mr. Zindani called for Mr. Saleh to step down and described the fervor for reform as an opportunity to set up an Islamic state in Yemen. “An Islamic state is coming,” he said, drawing cries of “God is great” from some in the crowd.
He said Mr. Saleh “came to power by force, and stayed in power by force, and the only way to get rid of him is through the force of the people.” He was guarded by about 10 soldiers while aides held two umbrellas over his head to shade him from the sun.
Since 2004, Mr. Zindani, has been on the United States Treasury list of “specially designated global terrorists” suspected of fund-raising for Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. He has been described as a revered spiritual leader and a onetime theological adviser to Osama bin Laden.
In the past, he has publicly opposed terrorism, if not jihad, or holy war, and his word carries considerable political and moral weight in Yemen. For many years, he maintained ties with President Saleh even though he was a founder of the Islamic opposition Al Islah Party.
Some in the crowd said they supported his appearance because of his position against the president. “Yes, he is a big influence,” said Saleh Al Garani, 25, an unemployed anti-government protester. “But what’s important is that he says ‘get out.’ We all agree because he says Saleh has to go.”
Others said Mr. Zindani’s appearance at the demonstration did not denote a broader Islamic influence on the Yemeni protests. The cleric has been a supporter of Mr. Saleh for five years, said Abdul-Ghani Al Iryani, a political analyst. “Now he has jumped ship because he’s seen that Saleh is slowly losing his power base and therefore he wanted to be with the winning side. That’s all there is to it,” Mr. Iryani said.
But to judge from the numbers on Tuesday, the pro-government camp seemed to have gathered some strength, mustering one of its biggest crowds in weeks of turmoil.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
