This morning the Sunday Times published an article about Amnesty International's association with groups that support the Taliban and promote Islamic Right ideas. In that article, I was quoted as raising concerns about Amnesty's very high profile associations with Guantanamo-detainee Moazzam Begg. I felt that Amnesty International was risking its reputation by associating itself with Begg, who heads an organization, Cageprisoners, that actively promotes Islamic Right ideas and individuals.
Within a few hours of the article being published, Amnesty had suspended me from my job.
A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when a great organisation must ask: if it lies to itself, can it demand the truth of others? For in defending the torture standard, one of the strongest and most embedded in international human rights law, Amnesty International has sanitized the history and politics of the ex-Guantanamo detainee, Moazzam Begg and completely failed to recognize the nature of his organisation Cageprisoners.
The tragedy here is that the necessary defence of the torture standard has been inexcusably allied to the political legitimization of individuals and organisations belonging to the Islamic Right.
I have always opposed the illegal detention and torture of Muslim men at Guantanamo Bay and during the so-called War on Terror. I have been horrified and appalled by the treatment of people like Moazzam Begg and I have personally told him so. I have vocally opposed attempts by governments to justify 'torture lite'.
The issue is not about Moazzam Begg's freedom of opinion, nor about his right to propound his views: he already exercises these rights fully as he should. The issue is a fundamental one about the importance of the human rights movement maintaining an objective distance from groups and ideas that are committed to systematic discrimination and fundamentally undermine the universality of human rights. I have raised this issue because of my firm belief in human rights for all.
I sent two memos to my management asking a series of questions about what considerations were given to the nature of the relationship with Moazzam Begg and his organisation, Cageprisoners. I have received no answer to my questions. There has been a history of warnings within Amnesty that it is inadvisable to partner with Begg. Amnesty has created the impression that Begg is not only a victim of human rights violations but a defender of human rights. Many of my highly respected colleagues, each well-regarded in their area of expertise has said so. Each has been set aside.
As a result of my speaking to the Sunday Times, Amnesty International has announced that it has launched an internal inquiry. This is the moment to press for public answers, and to demonstrate that there is already a public demand including from Amnesty International members, to restore the integrity of the organisation and remind it of its fundamental principles.
I have been a human rights campaigner for over three decades, defending the rights of women and ethnic minorities, defending religious freedom and the rights of victims of torture, and campaigning against illegal detention and state repression. I have raised the issue of the association of Amnesty International with groups such as Begg's consistently within the organisation. I have now been suspended for trying to do my job and staying faithful to Amnesty's mission to protect and defend human rights universally and impartially.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Amnesty International favors radical Islamist, forces out whistleblower over gender issues
Friday, April 16, 2010
Nonie Darwish - A Letter to Gaza
Posted by Nonie Darwish on Apr 15th, 2010 and filed under FrontPage. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
I recently received an email accusing me of hating Arabs and my father. This email is typical of Arab media accusations of my views regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict. Since most Arabs have no chance to read my book, Now They Call Me Infidel, Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel and the War on Terror, which explains in detail my position, I will answer the email in this article. First, below is the translation of the Arabic language email which I received without a signature:
Salam to you,
With all of our pride in your father we pray that Allah will bless him with entering paradise, which is the wish of every person after this short prideful meaningless life. I want to ask you, has your father become your enemy after his death? We in the city of Gaza take pride in your father and I live on a street by the name of Shahid Moustafa Hafez which also has a school by the name of Shahid Moustafa Hafez. We never forgot his sacrifice, so how could you become an enemy to the tortured Palestinian people who are still suffering at the hands of Arab Zionists? I ask Allah to give you health and strength.
Awaiting your response and thank you in advance.
Here is my response:
Dear Gaza resident,
Your email touched me as sincere even though your accusations are wrong. I am not the enemy of Arabs and I assure you that I love my original culture and people. What makes me different is that I do not only love Arabs, but I also love the Jewish people. I am speaking my conscience. I respect their right to live in peace in their tiny homeland, Israel. I understand how that could be puzzling and unbelievable to many Arabs, to love both Jews and Arabs.
We Arabs have suffered from an unnatural and consistent indoctrination into Islamic supremacy and Jew hatred for over 1400 years. Thus it has become unfathomable to the Arab mind to comprehend loving both Arabs and Jews and wishing both well. Our culture has deprived us for many centuries from loving all of humanity as equals, through intense religious indoctrination resulting in self-imposed isolation and non-integration with other cultures. This isolation and jihad against non-Muslims has become increasingly difficult to maintain. Muslims everywhere are trying desperately to save face, reform Islam's image and deny the undeniable. But they also want to have their cake and eat it too. While they are telling the world Islam is a religion of peace, they still want to continue with the jihad against non-Muslim countries. While one leader says, let's kill all the Jews and take over Rome, another says to Western media that Islam is a religion of peace and we are deeply offended by the anti-Islam rhetoric. To play this sick game, Muslim culture must live a dysfunctional double life where everyone is deceived, including Muslims.
Thus to do the kind of jihad that Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, Assad, Nasser, Saudi jihadists etc, do and which is dictated by Sharia, Muslims find it hard to be honest. Thus, Muslims must claim victimhood in order to justify jihad. The entire Muslim world is using your people, the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza, to justify their jihad against not only Israel, but also all non-Muslim countries. That includes Iran, which supports Hamas and Hezbollah.
Your people in Gaza should have realized this game a long time ago, but you refuse to see and be open about who is your true oppressor. Arab and Muslim media is using and abusing your people in order to justify their Islamic jihad around the world. That is why they never want to resolve your problem and want you to suffer and live in constant terror against Israel.
Under Islamic law, non-Muslim countries are never equal to Muslim countries and actually their sovereignty as a non-Muslim nation must always be challenged by Islamic jihad. Islamic law codified jihad as a permanent war with non-Muslims to establish the religion. Muslims thus have to use Taquiyya, lies, to legitimize their aggression on Israel and the West. That is why Muslim countries can never abandon the constant hate propaganda, lies and misinformation about Israel and the West. If that ends, their jihad ends. The UN must be constantly bombarded by complaints from Arab countries against Israel. The Arab street must be constantly bombarded with ridiculous accusations and Zionist conspiracies. Lately on Syrian TV a Syrian intellectual accused Israel of stealing human organs in Haiti while they were helping them after the earthquake. This is not something new; it started in the 7th century, when the prophet Mohammed accused the Jews of treason to justify killing and expelling them and taking over their wealth. To explain this away, he stated that Jews are worthy of this treatment since they are the descendants of apes pigs and enemies of Allah. Muslims still use the same dynamic and the world still falls for it every time.
The Arab mind was trained to never venture outside of the box of Islamic superiority, and that prevented us from treating the rest of humanity as equals. It is alien to Muslim preachers today to preach love to all of humanity and wishing non-Muslims the same human rights as Muslims. I have never heard that from a Muslim preacher. Only after 9/11 and in the West today, do we see some Muslim preachers trying to preach some Western values and engage in interfaith dialogue, in order to rehabilitate the image of Islam in the West and attract more converts.
I often get mail from secular Muslims who ask me: I can understand that you chose to leave Islam, but how can you support the Jews? I get mail like this because, in the Muslim mindset, loving, accepting and feeling good about Jews or Christians and thinking of them as equals, is unthinkable and an act of treason to Islam itself and even worse. It is as though the whole religion of Islam is dedicated to hating and killing Jews.
After centuries of this kind of education, the Muslim world produced a dysfunctional society, unable to relate to the rest of the world. While wanting to convince the world they are a religion of peace, do not be afraid of Islam, they are still hell-bent on conquering the world for Islam. That is Islam's dilemma today.
What I, and a few others, are trying to do is to bring the truth to both Muslims and non-Muslims to finally face this sick game. We want to encourage Arabs to look at Jews and others as human beings and not as enemies to conquer. What kind of God will tell his followers to kill more than half of humanity if they don't submit to Islam? The Muslim world today is a disaster waiting to happen. Ahmadinejad, who is not an Arab, wants to continue the Islamic jihad against Jews by destroying Israel. I have news to especially the Left in Europe and America: Islamic jihad will not end with Israel; you will be next.
To my email writer: in your letter to me, I have noticed that your outlook on life is pessimistic describing it as short and meaningless pride. Your views are prevalent in Muslim culture and I have heard it thousands of times when I lived in the Middle East. I remember even when we laughed and giggled as young girls, we were immediately silenced as being improper and that Allah somehow does not like us to laughing for no reason or in public. Even a heartfelt laugh to a Muslim was not going to get you friends, but critics. Your message to me and to Muslims is that life on earth will not get us happiness and the only escape from such misery is the everlasting happiness in the pleasures of Allah's paradise after dying in jihad. But why take the Jews with us? They want to live and enjoy life and to make the earth, right here, a better place.
Our rejection of life is not a coincidence: since jihad does not value life, then it must value death. The first casualty of the jihad principle is peace and that is why I never learned peace as a value in Gaza. I have never heard a peaceful song in Arabic. To think of peace with the Jews is equal to treason to Islam. Rejection of peace has detrimental consequences to the healthy functioning of the Arab personality, family, society and the whole region. It is not a coincidence that Saudis reject under the law any celebration of Valentine's Day, reject celebrating love between a man and a woman, teaching peace and compassion to their children towards the others. Just look at our Islamic law books and see the most cruel and unusual punishments ever created in any culture on earth. Only a culture that demands war and terror can promote such cruelty.
As to your question about hating my father, again I want to assure you that I adore and respect my father more than all of the people of Gaza. Actually I love him and wish him heaven not because he killed Jews, but because he was a good human being who was loved by many including the Israeli soldiers who killed him. He was known even to Israel as a cut above his peers and had integrity and honor. My father was the victim of the blood-thirsty culture of death all around him. He is one of the many thousands and even millions of victims of the jihad ideology, practiced over the last 1400 years.
Dear Gaza resident, yes, I cannot blame the Jewish people, or the government of Israel, for what you call the 'misery' of the Palestinians. I can only blame Arab and Islamic culture which used and abused you and which you allowed. I believe that this is an Arab self-inflicted crisis that has nothing to do with Israel.
Arab education has never told us the truth about the Israeli people and the story from their side and what Jerusalem means to them. We were told that Jerusalem was a Muslim city simply because Mohammed dreamt one night that he went to the farthest mosque but he never mentioned Jerusalem. The Koran never mentioned Jerusalem, which is mentioned hundreds of times in the Bible as the heart and soul of the Jewish people. We as Muslims never respected other religions holy cites and always claimed them to Islam; even Spain and India are being claimed as Muslim land. It was the tradition of Muslim conquerors to convert churches and temples to mosques and that is exactly what happened to the Jewish Temple Mount when 100 years after the prophet Mohammed died, Muslim conquerors built the mosque right on top of it. Just imagine if Jews or Christians had built a temple on top of the Kaaba in Mecca. This is how Islam has treated the Jews. It is time for Muslims to seek redemption and forgiveness and to extend the hand of reconciliation and peace to the Jewish people.
Nonie Darwish
Author: Cruel and Usual Punishment; the terrifying global implications of Islamic law.
--
Before you speak, think -Is it necessary? Is it true? Is it kind? Will it hurt anyone? Will it improve on the silence?"— Sathya Sai Baba, (1926 - )
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
By Ed Koch
 | ||
| | ||
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | I weep as I witness outrageous verbal attacks on Israel. What makes these verbal assaults and distortions all the more painful is that they are being orchestrated by President Obama. For me, the situation today recalls what occurred when the Roman emperor Vespasian launched a military campaign against the Jewish nation and its ancient capital of Jerusalem. Ultimately, Masada, a rock plateau in the Judean desert became the last refuge of the Jewish people against the Roman onslaught. I have been to Jerusalem and Masada. From the top of Masada, you can still see the remains of the Roman fortifications and garrisons, and the stones and earth of the Roman siege ramp that was used to reach Masada. The Jews of Masada committed suicide rather than let themselves be taken captive by the Romans. In Rome itself, I have seen the Arch of Titus with the sculpture showing enslaved Jews and the treasures of the Jewish Temple of Solomon with the Menorah, the symbol of the Jewish state, being carted away as booty during the sacking of Jerusalem. Oh, you may say, that is a far fetched analogy. Please hear me out. The most recent sacking of the old city of Jerusalem — its Jewish quarter — took place under the Jordanians in 1948 in the first war between the Jews and the Arabs, with at least five Muslim states — Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq — seeking to destroy the Jewish state. At that time, Jordan conquered East Jerusalem and the West Bank and expelled every Jew living in the Jewish quarter of the old city, destroying every building, including the synagogues in the old quarter and expelling from every part of Judea and Samaria every Jew living there so that for the first time in thousands of years, the old walled city of Jerusalem and the adjacent West Bank were "Judenrein" — a term used by the Nazis to indicate the forced removal or murder of all Jews. Jews had lived for centuries in Hebron, the city where Abraham, the first Jew, pitched his tent and where he now lies buried, it is believed, in a tomb with his wife, Sarah, as well as other ancient Jewish patriarchs and matriarchs. I have visited that tomb and at the time asked an Israeli soldier guarding it — so that it was open to all pilgrims, Christians, Muslims and Jews — "where is the seventh step leading to the tomb of Abraham and Sarah," which was the furthest entry for Jews when the Muslims were the authority controlling the holy place? He replied, "When we retook and reunited the whole city of Jerusalem and conquered the West Bank in 1967, we removed the steps, so now everyone can enter," whereas when Muslims were in charge of the tomb, no Jew could enter it. And I did. I am not a religious person. I am comfortable in a synagogue, but generally attend only twice a year, on the high holidays. When I entered the tomb of Abraham and Sarah, as I recall, I felt connected with my past and the traditions of my people. One is a Jew first by birth and then by religion. Those who leave their religion, remain Jews forever by virtue of their birth. If they don't think so, let them ask their neighbors, who will remind them. I recall the words of the columnist Robert Novak, who was for most of his life hostile to the Jewish state of Israel in an interview with a reporter stating that while he had converted to Catholicism, he was still a cultural Jew. I remain with pride a Jew both by religion and culture. My support for the Jewish state has been long and steadfast. Never have I thought that I would leave the U.S. to go and live in Israel. My loyalty and love is first to the U.S. which has given me, the son of Polish Jewish immigrants, so much. But, I have also long been cognizant of the fact that every night when I went to sleep in peace and safety, there were Jewish communities around the world in danger. And there was one country, Israel, that would give them sanctuary and would send its soldiers to fight for them and deliver them from evil, as Israel did at Entebbe in 1976. I weep today because my president, Barack Obama, in a few weeks has changed the relationship between the U.S. and Israel from that of closest of allies to one in which there is an absence of trust on both sides. The contrast between how the president and his administration deals with Israel and how it has decided to deal with the Karzai administration in Afghanistan is striking. The Karzai administration, which operates a corrupt and opium-producing state, refuses to change its corrupt ways — the president's own brother is believed by many to run the drug traffic taking place in Afghanistan — and shows the utmost contempt for the U.S. is being hailed by the Obama administration as an ally and publicly treated with dignity. Karzai recently even threatened to join the Taliban if we don't stop making demands on him. Nevertheless, Karzai is receiving a gracious thank-you letter from President Obama. The New York Times of April 10th reported, "…that Mr. Obama had sent Mr. Karzai a thank-you note expressing gratitude to the Afghan leader for dinner in Kabul. 'It was a respectful letter,' General Jones said." On the other hand, our closest ally — the one with the special relationship with the U.S., has been demeaned and slandered, held responsible by the administration for our problems in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. The plan I suspect is to so weaken the resolve of the Jewish state and its leaders that it will be much easier to impose on Israel an American plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, leaving Israel's needs for security and defensible borders in the lurch. I believe President Obama's policy is to create a whole new relationship with the Arab states of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, and Iraq as a counter to Iran — The Tyrannosaurus Rex of the Muslim world which we are now prepared to see in possession of a nuclear weapon. If throwing Israel under the bus is needed to accomplish this alliance, so be it. I am shocked by the lack of outrage on the part of Israel's most ardent supporters. The members of AIPAC, the chief pro-Israel lobbying organization in Washington, gave Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a standing ovation after she had carried out the instructions of President Obama and, in a 43-minute telephone call, angrily hectored Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Members of Congress in both the House and Senate have made pitifully weak statements against Obama's mistreatment of Israel, if they made any at all. The Democratic members, in particular, are weak. They are simply afraid to criticize President Obama. What bothers me most of all is the shameful silence and lack of action by community leaders — Jew and Christian. Where are they? If this were a civil rights matter, the Jews would be in the mall in Washington protesting with and on behalf of our fellow American citizens. I asked one prominent Jewish leader why no one is preparing a march on Washington similar to the one in 1963 at which I was present and Martin Luther King's memorable speech was given? His reply was "Fifty people might come." Remember the 1930s? Few stood up. They were silent. Remember the most insightful statement of one of our greatest teachers, Rabbi Hillel: "If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?" We have indeed stood up for everyone else. When will we stand up for our brothers and sisters living in the Jewish state of Israel? If Obama is seeking to build a siege ramp around Israel, the Jews of modern Israel will not commit suicide. They are willing to negotiate a settlement with the Palestinians, but they will not allow themselves to be bullied into following self-destructive policies. To those who call me an alarmist, I reply that I'll be happy to apologize if I am proven wrong. But those who stand silently by and watch the Obama administration abandon Israel, to whom will they apologize?
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Edward I. Koch, the former mayor of New York, can be heard on Bloomberg Radio (WBBR 1130 AM) every Sunday from 9-10 am . Comment by clicking here.
© 2010, Ed Koch
--
Before you speak, think -Is it necessary? Is it true? Is it kind? Will it hurt anyone? Will it improve on the silence?"— Sathya Sai Baba, (1926 - )
Sunday, April 11, 2010
The Politically Correct and morally bankrupt attack on Aayan Hirsi Ali
Friday, April 9, 2010
Photo by: AP
How convenient that on Tuesday the BBC news service's headline changed straight from "Labor suspends three ministers" to "Britain expels Israeli diplomat."
Of course, this sudden change is more than just convenient – a contrived act on behalf of the British to use Israel as a smoke screen for its own problems. Even more worrying is the distinct possibility that Britain is simply following the US lead on how to divert domestic problems – by picking on Israel.
That this trend has been propagated by Israel's supposedly greatest friend, the US, is truly disturbing and requires immediate action. It didn't take President Barack Obama long to realize the best way of dealing with the embarrassment of seeing his foreign policy goals fall by the wayside was to focus on Israel. While in Egypt there has not been so much as a sniff of democracy since Obama's "historic" speech in Cairo, and Guantanamo Bay looks less likely to close than a McDonald's during rush hour, Obama is guaranteed a plethora of great international headlines by manipulating a friendly nation, and dangling the prevention of Iran's nuclear program – undoubtedly an existential threat – in front of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
The gross hypocrisy of the British is as baffling as it is disgraceful; after all, the British response to terrorism has been to launch wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which, however justifiable, were both immensely costly in term of civilian casualties.
Naturally, the mere suggestion of the UK being castigated like Israel in the UN Human Rights Council, despite widespread allegations of torture and various war crimes, is laughable, never mind the idea of British leaders being prevented from fulfilling their duties under laws of universal jurisdiction.
REGARDLESS OF whether Israel was involved in the Dubai assassination or not, the killing of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was an exercise in what Britain has proven inept at doing itself – taking care of a dangerous terrorist with the loss of no civilians whatsoever.
The question begged is why, when thousands of refugees are purposefully displaced in Sri Lanka, human rights are consistently clamped down on in China and more than half of the world's population fail to have their right to democratic leadership realized, is Britain picking on Israel for a crime it hasn't even been convicted of?
The answer is simple. Israel is by far the easiest target, guaranteed to captivate the media and win over a public salivating at the thought of seeing it strung up. What better way to deflect domestic criticism than to pander to swaths of bigoted voters by launching unjustified measures against the Jewish state?
As Gilad Schalit languishes in Gaza in contravention of the Third Geneva Convention, Britain can be counted on to do the bare minimum to secure his release, while accusing Israel of being the nation showing a disregard for the two countries' diplomatic relationship. It is, rather, the British, unable to prevent their own legal system being abused for racist endeavors, who should be red-faced over the recent breakdown of relations.
The wording of Foreign Secretary David Miliband's announcement to Parliament on the decision to expel the Israeli diplomat was grounded in irony. Why Miliband feels in a position to talk of the "intolerable" way in which a "friend" operates is deeply questionable. Britain is in no place to be preaching morality, never mind to a free, democratic nation.
British Jewry, in its muted action, has goaded the willingness of the British government to stab Israel in the back. We are undoubtedly in a situation where the British government has no fear of provoking the pro-Israel and Jewish population into meaningful action, rendering Israel by far the easiest target when finding a scapegoat to cover up domestic misgivings. This must be the wake-up call.
While the British Jewish leadership was happy to let the disgraceful universal jurisdiction fiasco get sorted out behind closed doors, this expulsion is a step too far. The expulsion of an Israeli diplomat is grounded in discrimination and bias. Britain would not take such measures against any other state, even those hostile to the UK.
This is not just an attack on the State of Israel but on Britain's own Jewish population. If British Jewry does not now stand up and be counted, then when?
The writer has been a frequent observer of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva and is now based in the United Kingdom.
--
Before you speak, think -Is it necessary? Is it true? Is it kind? Will it hurt anyone? Will it improve on the silence?"— Sathya Sai Baba, (1926 - )
Sunday, April 4, 2010
A Special Relationship Ends
The fall out between the U.S. and Israel, Benny Morris explains, threatens world peace. Does Obama realize that a nuclear cloud hangs overhead?
Without doubt, the Middle East's rogue or terrorist leaders, from Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Hizbullah's Hassan Nasrallah to Hamas's Khalid Mashal, are rubbing their hands with glee.
The year-long rift between the Netanyahu and Obama administrations over Israel's settlement policy in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is threatening to turn into a political rupture - just as Israel faces an existential threat
Israel faces an existential threat which it needs every ounce of American support to counter. 
In the first decades of Israel's existence, when it fought and defeated Egyptian armies, the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations twice twisted arms in Tel Aviv to force Israeli forces to withdraw - first from the Sinai Peninsula (1956-57), then from territory west of the Suez Canal which it had occupied during the October War (1973).
But the Americans continued to provide Israel with strategic cover to counter Soviet threats of nuclear destruction and direct military intervention.
Today, Israel faces an Israel-hating Islamist coalition, of Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas, which may soon have nuclear weapons - but does so without any certainty about American goodwill and protection.
Barack Obama may say that the United States supports Israel and will not countenance a "nuclear Iran". But most Israelis see Obama as lacking in that basic commitment to and sympathy for Israel that characterised American presidents from Truman through Kennedy to Clinton and George W Bush.
As recently as 2000 and 2005, Israeli prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon felt able to offer or make major territorial concessions to the Palestinians because they knew that Washington would make up any shortfall in security that withdrawing from the West Bank and Gaza might entail.
Obama's deliberate coldness toward America's traditional ally has not been lost on the Israeli public. He spoke in Cairo last year to the Muslim world, while avoiding a "balancing" visit to Jerusalem. He
pettily humiliated Netanyahu during last week's visit to America (on the evening of their meeting, Obama left Netanyahu for more than an hour stranded in the White House while he dined without his guest). Nor will Washington's overbearing tone be quickly forgotten.
And while, without doubt, Obama's health care bill victory has bolstered his stature in American public opinion and enabled him to face off with Netanyahu, his Democratic Party may yet pay a price in the congressional elections in November.
The pro-Israel lobby in Washington remains powerful, despite recent knocks and the emergence of a small, Obama-supporting dissident Jewish lobby called J-Street.
While American Jews traditionally vote Democrat, Obama's trouncing of Israel may well affect campaign contributions and votes (American Jews, who number more than 5 million, tend to contribute and vote
disproportionately).
In the coming weeks, it will become clear whether Israelis interpret Obama's behaviour toward Netanyahu as a
Obama's deliberate coldness toward America's traditional ally has not been lost on the Israeli public.
Israelis have recently been given grounds for feeling that Netanyahu is an incompetent (and unlucky) prime minister: the international political fallout from the assassination he authorised of Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai, including Britain's expulsion of the Mossad head of station in London, is still reverberating.
And while most Israelis approve of the killing of a Hamas general and condemn Western and Arab hypocrisy in this regard (MI6 agents have never used non-British passports? Did Dubai's rulers really support Hamas's gun-running activities, in cahoots with Iran, on its soil?), many question the wisdom of the cost-benefit calculus.
Many Israelis have been wary of Netanyahu since his first tenure as prime minister in the late 1990s, when his relations with Clinton were poor. But they will not endorse American interference in Israel's politics or with its vital interests.
Did the Obama administration embark on its confrontation with Netanyahu in order to force him to switch coalition partners from the two main Right-wing parties - Yisrael Beiteinu and Shas - to the more agreeable centrist Kadima Party? Or is it merely seeking to freeze the Israeli settlement enterprise, to pave the way for Palestinian re-entry into peace negotiations?
Either way, most Israelis resent Obama's arm-twisting, and it is by no means clear that Israel will soften the widespread desire to retain East Jerusalem while opposing the settlement enterprise in the wider West Bank.
Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad speaks of the destruction of "the Zionist regime", and Iran has spent a decade fashioning the tools with which to achieve this - nuclear weapons and the Shihab III rockets to deliver them.
Washington may still be beyond Iranian reach and the Arab Gulf states, while nervous about Iran's bid for regional hegemony and atomic bombs, may rightly feel that they are not the intended targets. But Israelis are keenly aware that they are in Tehran's sights.
Iran is an estimated one to three years away from building the bomb. And its local clients and proxies, Hizbullah in Lebanon and the Hamas in Gaza, have been equipped by Tehran (and Syria) with rockets with which to pound Israel's cities and air bases.
The White House and State Department still speak about mobilising the world community for sanctions to halt Iran's nuclear programme. But Russia and China are not on board for effective sanctions, while Obama and the American military have manifestly no stomach for a military confrontation with Iran.
Indeed, Netanyahu by now may suspect that the Americans have resigned themselves to a nuclear-armed Iran and are relying on deterrence to fend off an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel. But many Israelis fear that the anti-Semitic mullahs may prove less rational than the ageing apparatchiks who ran the Kremlin during the Cold War nuclear
stand-off.
The only action that could halt Iran's march toward nuclear weaponry is a strike by Israel. Whether Israel can do so effectively without a green light and some assistance from Washington is unclear.
At a minimum, Israel would need American permission to overfly Iraq and perhaps landing rights, for refuelling and repair, in regional U.S. air bases. Israel may also need additional equipment and weaponry. After an air assault, Israel would need American political backing to prevent Security Council condemnation and sanctions resolutions, and a promise of support and supplies if a wider Middle East war ensued.
While many Arab and Western governments would no doubt privately welcome the destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities, their public posturing would be different.
So far, Obama - like George W Bush before him - has vetoed an Israeli pre-emptive strike. The Americans are fearful of the chaos that might engulf the Middle East and are aware of their vulnerability in the region. They assume that the Iranians would charge them with complicity, whether or not they were complicit.
It is possible that Netanyahu hoped to reach an agreement with Obama based on a trade-off - Israeli concessions on the Palestinians in exchange for America agreeing to an attack on the Iranian installations. But Obama apparently offered Netanyahu nothing, while demanding everything on the Palestinian front.
Washington believes that Palestinian-Israeli friction helps fuel Muslim antagonism towards the U.S.. In its view, the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations or, better still, an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord would reduce this antagonism.
Which brings us to Netanyahu and the problem of Jerusalem. In December 2000, Clinton called for a two-state solution in which the Palestinians would have the Gaza Strip and about 95 per cent of the West Bank. The Arab-populated neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem would constitute the Palestinian state's capital.
Ehud Barak, prime minister at the time, accepted the Clinton parameters, including on Jerusalem. The Palestinians rejected them. And while Netanyahu, under pressure from Obama, may have agreed to the principle of a two-state solution and to limit construction around the West Bank, he has never accepted the principle of dividing
Obama has ignored evidence that the Palestinians are averse to a two-state solution.
For Obama, this means that Netanyahu is not serious about peace and a two-state solution. He is right to the extent that there can be no two-state solution without Palestinian sovereignty over Arab East Jerusalem.
A the same time, Obama has ignored evidence that the Palestinians are averse to a two-state solution. How else to explain the majority Palestinian vote in 2006 for Hamas, which advocates Israel's destruction? Or the rejection by Yasser Arafat (with his colleagues, including Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian "president") of Clinton's two-state proposals six years before? Or Abbas's effective "no" to the peace proposals in 2008 of Ehud Olmert? Or Abbas's refusal to recognise Israel as "a Jewish state" while insisting on the Palestinian refugees' "right of return" (which would give Israel an Arab-majority)?
In short, Netanyahu has given Obama ample grounds for frustration and anger - and Obama has given Netanyahu ample grounds for suspicion about his real sympathies. And this has happened at a crucial moment in Middle Eastern history, when a nuclear cloud looms over the region.
(from the Sunday Telegraph)
--
Before you speak, think -Is it necessary? Is it true? Is it kind? Will it hurt anyone? Will it improve on the silence?"— Sathya Sai Baba, (1926 - )
Saudi Arabia's split-personaltiy in Afghanistan
This article has a lot of needless euphemisms about the role of Saudi Arabia in Afghanistan, that only make a complex picture totally incomprehensible. Saudi money financed the Madrassahs that created the Taleban, and Saudi Arabia helped to arm the Taleban against the Soviets. Now they are stuck with a group that is threatening their own regime directly, and a lot of Taleban fighters are recruited from Saudi Arabia. On the one hand, the Saudi government cannot be for Al-Qaeda, because it threatens the Saudi Regime and because Saudi Arabia can't allow itself yet to be seen as an enemy of the United States. On the other hand, they cannot be seen to be taking sides against Muslims. It is still confusing, but at least with that introduction, it might be more comprehensible.
"Afghanistan Crisis" is also a euphemism and is incorrect. Thirty years ago, there was a "crisis" in Afghanistan and the term was used appropriately. But a crisis cannot go on indefinitely. At some point it must be admitted that there is a war going on in Afghanistan, not a momentary "crisis."
Ami Isseroff
Introduction
During the January 2010 London Conference on Afghanistan, Afghan President Hamid Karzai appealed to Saudi King 'Abdallah, asking him to participate in mediation efforts between the Afghan government and the Taliban. His appeal focused media attention on Saudi Arabia's long-standing diplomatic involvement in this country.
This report reviews the roots of Saudi Arabia's involvement in Afghanistan and of its current policy there, which is characterized by several conflicting features: on the one hand, a firm objection to the escalating Western war against the Taliban – a war which endangers Pakistan – and attempts to set the stage for negotiations with certain groups within this movement; and on the other hand, a recognition that the main Taliban leadership has aligned itself with Al-Qaeda and is therefore an enemy of Saudi Arabia.
Background
The motivations for Saudi Arabia's long-standing interest in Afghanistan are threefold: concern for its strategic ally Pakistan, competition with Iran, and considerations of political prestige.
A) Pakistan – Saudi Arabia's Strongest Sunni Ally
Saudi Arabia views the ongoing war in Afghanistan as a threat to Pakistan, which, for many decades, has served as Saudi Arabia's strategic depth in the Muslim world, and whose stability is therefore of the utmost importance to the Saudis. This was related in an article by Al-Watan's editor, Jamal Khashoggi: "Saudi Arabia has a genuine interest to bring peace to Afghanistan because it will help stabilize Pakistan, a strategic ally of the kingdom. [The Saudis] can use [their] connections with Afghan religious leaders to achieve [this aim]."[1] The daily Al-Jazirah likewise expressed Saudi Arabia's concerns about Pakistan, in an editorial published following a series of terrorist attacks in Pakistan cities: "The growth of Taliban terrorist organizations and their spread throughout [strategically] important regions in interior Pakistan is a negative development, not just for Pakistan and Afghanistan, but for the [entire] Indian subcontinent... The security crisis Afghanistan is experiencing, and which Pakistan is currently struggling with, represents a serious challenge to both these countries, as well as to the U.S. and to NATO as a whole."[2]
B) Saudi Arabia's Rivalry with Iran
Saudi Arabia's interest in Afghanistan also stems from its ongoing rivalry with Iran, whose ties to Afghanistan go back centuries. The Safavid and Qajar dynasties (which ruled Iran from the early 16th to the early 20th centuries) both dominated the Herat region in Western Afghanistan and claimed it as part of their empires. Afghanistan also has a large Shi'ite minority (estimated at 20% of the population) and a number of ethnic minorities that speak Iranian languages. Today, Iran views Afghanistan as part of its sphere of influence and as an arena for advancing its political, strategic, economic, and cultural interests.
Saudi Arabia strongly opposes Iran's use of Afghanistan to boost its regional status and set up an additional front of confrontation with the U.S., and the Saudi dailies Al-Sharq Al-Awsat and Al-Watan have pointed to the heavy involvement of Iran in Afghanistan.[3] As a matter of fact, the current conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran is just another phase in the long-standing rivalry between them. This rivalry intensified especially after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which generated immense solidarity with Iran in the Muslim world. Saudi Arabia sought to counter this development and restore its supremacy in the Muslim world through two main courses of action, the first of which was a decade-long involvement in the Afghan jihad against the Soviet Union. This war culminated in victory over the Soviets and in the demise of their empire, which greatly enhanced Saudi Arabia's prestige at the expense of Iran's. Second, the Saudis engaged in a global effort to spread Wahhabi Islam throughout the world by financing educational facilities and providing personnel to run them. This too was a Saudi victory, for the Saudi efforts were far more successful than Iran's attempts to export its revolution.
C) Saudi Arabia's Status and Prestige in the Islamic World
Finally, Saudi Arabia sees itself as leader of the Islamic. Mediation in Afghanistan serves a means of improving Saudi Arabia's prestige and status, both in the Muslim world and internationally.
Saudi Diplomatic Activity vis-à-vis Afghanistan
As a new U.S. administration took office and resolved to re-examine its foreign policy in Central Asia, Saudi Arabia made efforts to influence the shaping of this new policy as well as the global (and especially the American) media discourse regarding Afghanistan's future. Indeed, the Afghanistan issue was at the center of meetings held between the Saudi leadership and senior U.S. officials, particularly the summit between U.S. President Barack Obama and Saudi King 'Abdallah.[4]
Even though Saudi Arabia stands against the U.S. war in Afghanistan, as will be explained below, U.S. policy in the matter has been greatly affected by Saudi activity, as demonstrated by the support of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, for any Saudi effort to mediate between the Taliban and the Afghan government.[5] This influence was also reflected in a report published by the daily Al-Watan following a meeting between Foreign Minister Saud Al-Faisal and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, according to which "Saudi Arabia and the U.S. see eye-to-eye on the [issue of] supporting... Afghanistan."[6]
Over the last year and a half, Saudi-mediated secret talks have been held between the Afghan government, under President Hamid Karzai, and the Taliban, with active support from the U.K., which maintained close contact with the Saudi leadership over the matter.[7] These talks had been cold-shouldered by the Bush administration, whereas the Obama administration has approved of and encouraged them. Recently, Saudi Arabia's involvement in Afghanistan was brought out in the open in Karzai's January 28, 2010 speech at the London Conference on Afghanistan, in which he urged Saudi King 'Abdallah to take an active role in the Afghanistan peace process and to serve as mediator between the Afghan government and the Taliban militants: "For the sake of [ensuring] the success of our [peace] process, we hope that King 'Abdallah Bin 'Abd Al-Aziz will graciously support it and participate in directing it." Following these remarks in London, President Karzai visited Riyadh, where he made an official request to King 'Abdallah for his aid. Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al-Feisal responded that his country would comply with this request on the condition that the Taliban break off its ties with Al-Qaeda.[8] It should be noted that Saudi Arabia insists that it has no ties with the Taliban, apparently in response to criticism it has faced in the past over connections with the organization. Foreign Minister Al-Faisal recently stated that no ties whatsoever exist between his country and the Taliban. He said that contact between the two sides was abrogated by Saudi Arabia in response to the Taliban's sheltering of Al-Qaeda, and since then, there have been no ties at all.[9] However, although Saudi Arabia did break off its ties with the Taliban faction led by Mullah Omar, it has maintained ties with other factions.
The Saudi Media Effort
In the course of a public debate in the U.S. over the future of the war against terror in Afghanistan, it was proposed to adopt a new policy vis-a-vis the Taliban, namely to stop the war against this movement and focus instead on Al-Qaeda alone. As part of this debate, the Washington Post published an op-ed by Saudi Prince Turki Al-Faisal [10] in which he supported this approach, urging U.S. policy makers to focus their efforts on bin Laden rather than on the Taliban. Al-Faisal argued that the Afghan Taliban is a weak and disorganized group, characterizing them as a loose collection of malcontents opposed to the current government, without any formal hierarchical structure. He hinted that some parts of the organization would be open to dialogue, and even advised the U.S. to drop the term "terrorists" when referring to its members. He recommended launching serious negotiations with the Taliban, while also reaching out to tribal leaders.[11]
The Saudi press attached great importance to Prince Al-Faisal's recommendations – the daily Al-Watan cited them in three separate editorials – and responded angrily to the U.S. administration's rejection of his advice. Al-Watan called for "the opinions of experts in this matter [to] be given consideration, and especially [the opinion of] countries with a long history of expertise in handling the Afghan situation and with an understanding of the Afghan psychology and political approach. In his Washington Post article, Prince Turki Al-Faisal offered American decision-makers clear policy recommendations regarding Afghanistan which it is crucial that they adopt..."[12]
The Saudi Press on the Possibility of Saudi Mediation in Afghanistan
Al-Watan Editor: Saudi Arabia, More than Other Nations, Understands the Afghans
In his Al-Watan article, editor Jamal Khashoggi discussed President Karzai's appeal to King 'Abdallah, and wondered about Saudi Arabia's chances of success in Afghanistan. He stated that, while Saudi Arabia has an advantage in its good relations with Afghanistan, it also has a bitter experience with the extremist Taliban members there. According to Khashoggi, "To advance its current peace initiative, Saudi Arabia can take advantage of the Afghan nation's good memories from the period of Russian occupation and the jihad [against Russia], when Saudi Arabia provided [Afghanistan with] military, diplomatic, and financial support... [On the other hand,] there has been no special connection between Saudi Arabia and the Taliban, except during a temporary trial period of contact lasting only three years... There is no cause to be excessively optimistic, since our experience with the Taliban has been bitter, considering that they – or at least their leaders – operate according to the principle of 'all or nothing'...
"Saudi Arabia's thorough understanding of the situation in Afghanistan, thanks to its [past] activities and experiences there, is the main reason for Karzai's request for Saudi mediation. Saudi Arabia understands Afghanistan's diversity... The Taliban's inclusion in this diverse [political array] would be considered an accomplishment, especially since [this organization itself] is not altogether homogenous... What Saudi Arabia and the region as a whole have to gain, strategically, is the isolation of Al-Qaeda, which, as a result of the ascent of the Pakistani Taliban, poses an ever-increasing security threat to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia's strategic ally to the east. Saudi Arabia must act on this. Aside from a political [victory], the elimination of Al-Qaeda, its attitudes, and its doctrines, signifies first and foremost a victory for Islam. The road ahead is a long one, [and it must be remembered] that the war is not a military one, but a war of ideas and beliefs."[13]
Saudi Criticism of U.S. Management of Afghanistan War
The announcement of Obama's decision to reinforce U.S. troops in Afghanistan [14] and ratchet up their military activities there was greeted in the Saudi press with a wave of criticism over U.S. disregard of the Saudi recommendations for negotiations with the Taliban. [15] Operation Moshtarak, an offensive carried out by combined NATO and Afghan army troops against Taliban strongholds in the south of the country, was likewise met with criticism over the war's continuation. Al-Watan claimed that the NATO offensive would deteriorate the situation in the Afghanistan-Pakistan arena, disrupting the Saudi mediation initiative before it had a chance to gather momentum. The daily reiterated Saudi disappointment at the U.S. rejection of the recommendations made by Turki Al-Faisal, asserting that Saudi Arabia would intervene only on its own terms: "The deteriorating situation in the Pakistan-Afghanistan arena does not bode well. Most analyses [of the situation] suggest that matters will continue to decline... Military intervention and the solution [it offers] represent one alternative, diametrically opposed to the alternative of negotiations. This analysis is relevant to the situation in Afghanistan, where, ten years after the first coalition forces arrived, Al-Qaeda remains active... The most obvious proof of the failure of international policy in dealing with the overall situation is the Afghan president's recent appeal to Saudi Arabia to intervene and mediate in resolving this crisis.
"The tribal areas in southern Afghanistan and northern Pakistan have become an independent emirate, or a sort of autonomy, and this must be recognized, albeit tacitly. That is the reality on the ground... which is the reason for Saudi Arabia's demands to reassess the policy being followed, especially the [push for] military resolution, which has exacerbated the mutual violence... Reviewing some of the ideas published by Prince Turki Al-Faisal on this matter, [one will find] the most feasible plan of action for dealing with the ever-deteriorating Pakistan-Afghanistan region.
"[In previous situations] Saudi Arabia has served as mediator in the service of Islam, without any ulterior motives of its own, and is capable of doing the same again, as long as it is in accordance with its own positions and perspective. The latest offensive by NATO forces in Helmand, which was the largest military operation since the arrival of coalition [forces] in Afghanistan, does not very well serve efforts to initiate a Saudi mediation."[16]
Saudi Columnists Harshly Criticize U.S. Policy
Saudi columnists leveled even harsher criticism at the U.S., condemning its military operations in Afghanistan. Al-Madina columnist Sa'id Muhammad Habib accused the U.S. of war crimes in Afghanistan, while lauding the Afghan combatants who, according to his statement, have a history of routing all occupying forces: "[There are] early signs of an immense, resonating defeat that will be dealt to the U.S. and to its NATO-member allies in Afghanistan by that same great Muslim nation... which has stood [throughout history] in arms against every imperialist...
"The difference between the past and the present [situation] lies in military technology: [today] the 'smart' bombs and deadly rockets dropped by the American planes take the lives of dozens and even hundreds of Afghans and Pakistanis in an instant... most of them defenseless civilians... Despite all this, the outcome of the Afghanistan war will reveal, if Allah should will it, the outright failure and defeat [of the U.S. and NATO]... The London Conference revealed the extent of distress felt by the international community regarding America's war on Afghanistan. Notwithstanding all the resources being spent on Obama's 'good' war there, this war is lost, [even] according to the commanders of the U.S. military... The U.S. will not be able to continue its war crimes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries, and to operate according to hypocritical policies and despicable double standards, and still maintain the support of the people. Its corrupt policies ensure its defeat. The great nation of Afghanistan will prove its allegiance to Islam, not to the dollar... The prestige of America and NATO will crumble into the dust of Afghanistan, until the U.S. withdraws, receding back into itself. Today the historic role [of the U.S.] has passed to other [nations]. The world recognizes China's status, as it continues defy the U.S., which is arming Taiwan".[18]
*R. Green is a research fellow at MEMRI.
[1] Reuters, February 2, 2010.
[2] Al-Jazirah (Saudi Arabia), December 9, 2009. It should be noted that Pakistan's importance to Saudi Arabia became particularly apparent when the Saudi press went out of its way to defend this country following the terrorist attacks in Mumbai in November, 2008. See MEMRI I&A No. 478,"Concerned About Pakistan's Future, Saudi Press Rallies to Prevent India-Pakistan Escalation," December 5, 2009, http://www2.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=urdu&ID=IA47808.
[3] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), March 11, 2010; Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), May 25, 2009.
[4] Al-Jazirah (Saudi Arabia), June 4, 2009. King 'Abdallah also discussed the Afghanistan issue in his meetings with Dennis Ross and Richard Holbrooke. In addition, the issue was addressed at a meeting between Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al-Faisal and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Al-Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), April 27, 2009; Al-Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), May 18, 2009; Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), December 8, 2009.
[5] Al-Hayat (London), November 25, 2009 .
[6] Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), February 16, 2010 .
[7] The Observer (Britain), September 28, 2008; Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), November 17, 2009. Recently, The Guardian published a report on the attempts of former Arab mujahideen, working in cooperation with Saudi attorneys over the past four years, to make preparations for talks between the Karzai government and the Taliban. According to the report, the Saudi royal family secretly has backed these attempts since 2008.
[8] Al-Hayat (London), February 3, 2010.
[9] Times of India (India), March 1, 2010.
[10] Washington Post (USA), October 8, 2009, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/08/AR2009100803805.html .
[12] Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), November 25, 2009.
[13] Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), February 3, 2010.
[14] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/01/AR2009120101231.html.
[15] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 2579, "Saudi Criticism of President Obama's Afghanistan Policy," January 20, 2010, http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3918.htm.
[16] Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), February 14, 2010.
[17] Al-Medina (Saudi Arabia), February 6, 2010.
Posts
