Archive for December 31, 2014

Egypt-Qatar rapprochement rattles Hamas

December 31, 2014

Egypt-Qatar rapprochement rattles Hamas, Al-MonitorAdnan Abu Amer, December 30, 2014

(These guys could form several pretty adequate stand-up comedy teams.

— DM)

Egyptian woman gestures during a protest against what they say is Qatar's backing of ousted Egyptian president Mohamed Mursi's government, outside the Qatari Embassy in CairoAn Egyptian woman gestures during a demonstration against what protesters call Qatar’s backing of ousted Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi’s government, outside the Qatari Embassy in Cairo, Nov. 30, 2013. (photo by REUTERS)

At a time when Hamas is mending its relationship with Iran, Egypt and Qatar are also in the process of rapprochement after more than a year of tension. Resumed ties between them will likely have an impact on Hamas, but questions remain as to whether the Palestinian Islamist movement stands to gain or lose from this important regional development.

Hamas waited several days to announce its final position on the return of positive relations between Doha and Cairo on Dec. 20, when President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi met the envoy of Qatar’s emir in Cairo, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al-Thani, the minister’s assistant for International Cooperation Affairs.

On Dec. 28, senior Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar welcomed the Egyptian-Qatari convergence and denied Qatar was pressuring the Hamas leadership to leave Doha. He also denied reports that Qatar was planning to suspend its support for Hamas over the warming of ties with Egypt, reiterating that Hamas supports the unity of Arab countries to serve the Palestinian cause.

Yousef Rizqa, the former minister of information and political adviser to former Gaza Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, said in an interview with Al-Monitor, “The Egyptian-Qatari rapprochement serves the interest of the Palestinian national project, and Hamas has no concerns about its relations with Doha being harmed after the Doha-Cairo rapprochement because the movement is not a party to the internal Arab conflict, and it is accepted by the Arab capitals.”

However, an anonymous Egyptian official said in Dec. 26 press statement that Doha informed Hamas leaders that it would temporarily suspend its support for the movement in a bid to pressure Hamas to change its policies against Cairo.

Husam Badran, spokesman for Hamas and a resident of Doha, told Al-Monitor, “There is no suspension of the Qatari financial support for the movement, since their relationship is ongoing.” But Palestinian Minister of Labor Maamoun Abu Shahla revealed Dec. 28 that Qatar had postponed the financial grant supposed to be sent to Gaza’s state workers.

Rizqa neither confirmed nor denied this report, but he told Al-Monitor that Qatar has not cut its support and relationship with Hamas over the rapprochement with Egypt, saying, “The Hamas-Doha relationship is stable and Qatar’s support for the movement is sustained and has never ceased. Moreover, Qatar’s position on Hamas is strategic.”

It is worth noting that Hamas’ fear of Qatar halting its financial support for the movement at Egypt’s request coincides with its renewed attempt to improve ties with Iran, as well as political head Khaled Meshaal’s recent visit to Turkey. Hamas may be reaching out to possible alternatives for regional support should Doha downgrade its ties with the movement in a “secret” deal with Cairo.

The Palestinian Authority did not express a position on the Egyptian-Qatari rapprochement, but on Dec. 25 Ambassador Hazem Abu Shanab, a member of the Revolutionary Council of Fatah, ruled out the consideration that the Egyptian-Qatari convergence would contribute to the improvement of relations between Hamas and Cairo, because this depends on how Cairo decides to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates, such as Hamas.

This prompted the Egyptian official to reveal Dec. 26, also on condition of anonymity, that Hamas demanded Doha mediate with Cairo to calm the atmosphere with Hamas, as the movement expressed its goodwill toward overcoming the tension with Cairo.

A senior Hamas official told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity that Hamas is analyzing the extent of Doha’s ability to influence Cairo on reconciling with the movement. Should the rupture between Hamas and Egypt continue irrespective of the Doha-Cairo rapprochement, this would be interpreted by Hamas as being made a scapegoat.

A former member of the Qatari Shura Council, asking not to be named, revealed to Al-Monitor, “There have been contacts made between the Hamas leadership, represented by Meshaal, and Emir Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, among other Qatari officials. They discussed the rapprochement with Egypt. Meshaal told the emir that he fully supports any Qatari effort to unify Arab positions.”

The Qatari official told Al-Monitor by phone from Doha, “Meshaal received a formal Qatari pledge not to attack the Hamas leadership or tighten the noose around its neck in Doha in exchange for rapprochement with Cairo. This is because Qatar never establishes relations based on bargaining between one party or another, and our relationship with Hamas will continue to exist.”

Interestingly, coinciding with the rapprochement, Egyptian media outlets reported that Cairo threatened to cut ties with Hamas on Dec. 26 unless 13 accused members of the movement were extradited to Egypt. The 13 were accused of involvement in armed operations in Egypt, and allegedly, Egyptian authorities have insisted that extradition proceedings must conclude before they consider improving relations with Hamas.

On Dec. 28, Zahar denied Egyptian media reports that Hamas interfered in Egypt’s domestic affairs.

A senior Hamas official in Gaza who spoke to Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity also denied the reports, saying, “Egypt made no formal request to extradite any Hamas member, and these accusations were featured across all media outlets, which only creates more tensions,” he said.

Ahmed Yousef, a senior Hamas official, told Al-Monitor that he hopes “the breakthrough in the Doha-Cairo relations will positively affect Hamas’ relations with Egypt and that Qatar would do its best to alleviate the tension between Gaza and Cairo,” adding, “The Hamas and Cairo dossier is likely to be opened after the meeting of Emir Tamim with Sisi.” He denied the existence of contacts between the movement and Egypt following the Doha-Cairo rapprochement.

The timing of the Egyptian-Qatari warming may have come as a surprise to Hamas, which took nearly a week to announce that it welcomes the move, making sure that it would not come at its expense. The atmosphere prevailing within Hamas is still ambiguous over whether the Qatari position toward the movement will be affected, despite promises made by Doha to the contrary. Hamas knows that the pressure exerted on Qatar may be stronger than its ability to resist.

 

Happy New Year !

December 31, 2014

▶ James Taylor – Auld Lang Syne – YouTube.

 

I began this site over 5 years ago anticipating a 6 month or so commitment.  This reminds me of the old aphorism:

Know how to make God laugh?

Tell him your plans…

Thus Auld Lang Syne seemed appropriate…

I wish a happy and healthy new year to our readers, both old and new.  Your continued interest is why this site is still online.

My special wishes go out to the amazing editors who joined the site this year.  They have volunteered a lot of their their time and the result speaks for itself.

From the bottom of my heart, thank you and God bless…

Dan

Joop

Louisiana Steve

Peter

Ann

Maybe year six will bring an end to the Iran/Israel conflict without the deaths of innocents…

Before scoffing at my naivete, remember it’s New Years.  If we can’t hope today then there’s no hope for hope.

Salutes and/or hugs to you all.  See you next year… !

Joe

joe

Joseph Wouk
Dec. 31, 2014
Eilat, Israel

Turkey: America’s unacknowledged problem

December 31, 2014

Turkey: America’s unacknowledged problem, Israel Hayom, Prof. Efraim Inbar, December 31, 2014

(The foreign policy of the Obama administration is difficult to understand. What might be the reasoning behind its apparently continuing support for Islamic Turkey, a bitter foe of Israel? What are the administration’s interests in the Middle East?– DM)

It is not clear why Washington puts up with such Turkish behavior. The Obama ‎administration seems to be unable to call a spade a spade. It refuses to acknowledge ‎that Turkey is a Trojan horse in NATO, and that Ankara undermines American interests ‎in the Middle East and elsewhere.‎

***************

Turkey is a NATO ally, and U.S. President Barack Obama has called Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan his best friend. But Erdogan-led Turkey does not ‎behave as an ally or a friend of the U.S. This is not a new development.‎

Erdogan and his Islamist party, the Justice and Development Party (AKP), have ruled Turkey since 2002. Erdogan’s ‎Turkey has gradually distanced itself from the West, adopting domestic and foreign ‎policies fueled by Ottoman and Islamist impulses. ‎

Turkey has been on the road to an authoritarian regime for several years. Infringements ‎on human rights have gradually increased. In truth, Turkey has never had a political ‎system with checks and balances able to constrain attempts to consolidate power ‎around one politician. In recent years, Erdogan has weakened further the few ‎constitutional constraints against “Putinization” of the Turkish political system. ‎

The longer Erdogan rules, the more power-hungry he seems. His authoritarian ‎personality becomes clearer every day. The press is hardly free. Erdogan arrests even ‎Islamist journalists who are critical of his policies. His party has infiltrated the judicial ‎system and the police. Foci of power, such as the bureaucracy, the banking system, ‎industrial associations and trade unions, have been mostly co-opted by the AKP. ‎Opposition political parties are largely discredited. The military, once active in politics ‎as the defender of the Kemalist secular tradition, has been successfully sidelined. ‎

From a realpolitik perspective, the domestic political developments, deplorable as they ‎may be in Turkey, could be ignored by the democratic West as long as Ankara ‎continues to be a useful ally. Unfortunately, Turkey no longer qualifies as a trusted ‎ally. ‎

The most recent examples of nefarious Turkish behavior are its support of Islamic State and ‎Hamas. Turkey is playing a double game on the issue of Islamic State. It pretends to ‎cooperate with the U.S. policy in the attempt to contain radical Islam, but actually ‎Turkey supports the radical group. It allows passage of volunteers through Turkish territory to join ‎Islamic State in Iraq. The group gets logistical support via Turkey, and sends its wounded militants for ‎treatment in Turkey. Turkish military forces stood idly by the besieged city of Kobani, ‎just across the Turkish border, while the Islamists killed Kurdish fighters. Finally, ‎Turkey denies the American air force access to Turkish bases, forcing the U.S. to use far‎away bases when attacking Islamic State targets. ‎

Turkey is also openly supporting another radical Islamist organization, Hamas. ‎Despite the fact that the West regards Hamas a terrorist organization, Ankara regularly ‎hosts Hamas representatives to meet the highest Turkish dignitaries. Hamas, an ‎offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, has a rabid anti-American position. Moreover, ‎Salah al-Aruri, a senior Hamas operative, operates out of Istanbul. Recently, the ‎Turkish branch of Hamas was involved in a series of attempts to carry out terrorist ‎attacks against Israel, and in orchestrating a coup against the current leadership of the ‎Palestinian Authority.‎

Such behavior should not surprise policy makers in Washington. In 2003, Ankara ‎denied the request from Washington to open its territory so that the U.S. military could ‎attack Saddam Hussein’s forces from two separate fronts.‎

AKP-ruled Ankara also defied American preferences on Syria, a country allied with ‎radical Iran and on the American list of states supporting terrorism. In January 2004, ‎Bashar Assad became the first Syrian president ever to visit Turkey. In April 2009, the ‎two states conducted their first ever joint military exercise. No other NATO member ‎had such close relations with the authoritarian regime in Damascus, which has been ‎closely allied with Iran for several decades.‎

Turkey further deviated from the Western consensus in 2008 by hosting Sudanese ‎President Omar Hassan al-Bashir twice. Bashir, who was charged with war crimes and ‎genocide in Darfur, presided over an Islamist regime. ‎

Turkey even welcomed the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mahmoud ‎Ahmadinejad, for a visit in August 2008. No Western country has issued such an ‎invitation to the Iranian leader. Additionally, Erdogan congratulated Ahmadinejad ‎immediately after his re-election in June 2009. When it comes to Iran’s nuclear threat, ‎Ankara, unlike its NATO allies, has refused to adopt the U.S. stance on harsher ‎sanctions, fearing in part the economic consequences of such steps. In June 2010, ‎Turkey voted at the U.N. Security Council against a U.S.-sponsored resolution meant to ‎impose a new round of sanctions on Iran.‎

Turkey also has consistently defied advice from Washington to tone down its anti-‎Israel statements and mend relations with an important American ally. All American ‎efforts in this direction have failed.‎

There is also a clear divergence between the U.S. and Turkey on important global issues ‎such as Russia and China. For example, U.S. wanted to send ships into the Black Sea via ‎the Bosporus Strait during the Georgia war in August 2008. Turkey flatly denied ‎several such requests on the pretext that the military vessels were too large. Moreover, ‎Turkey proposed the creation of a regional security framework involving Turkey, ‎Russia, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan that left out a NATO role. More blatantly, ‎Turkey has failed to participate in the Western economic sanctions imposed on Russia ‎during the recent Ukraine crisis.‎

Dissonance exists also with regards to China. While the U.S. fears the rise of China, ‎Turkey sees this country as a potential economic partner and not a problem. It held ‎military exercises with China. Ankara even considered purchasing anti-aircraft systems ‎from Beijing, an incredibly brazen position for a NATO member.

It is not clear why Washington puts up with such Turkish behavior. The Obama ‎administration seems to be unable to call a spade a spade. It refuses to acknowledge ‎that Turkey is a Trojan horse in NATO, and that Ankara undermines American interests ‎in the Middle East and elsewhere.‎

Abbas faces more fiascos after the UN rejects his unilateral path to a Palestinian state

December 31, 2014

Abbas faces more fiascos after the UN rejects his unilateral path to a Palestinian state.

DEBKAfile Special Report December 31, 2014, 9:24 AM (IDT)
Mahmoud Abbas loses his first UN round

Mahmoud Abbas loses his first UN round

The United Nations Security Council Tuesday night, Dec. 30, rejected a Palestinian resolution demanding that Israel withdraw from disputed territories within three years.

The motion fell one short of the minimum nine “yes” votes in the Security Council, confirming debkafile’s reporting ahead of the vote. The US and Australia voted against; Russia, China, France, Argentina, Chad, Chile, Jordan and Luxembourg voted in favor and the UK, Lithuania Nigeria, South Korea and Rwanda abstained.

The document called for Israel to fully withdraw from all “occupied Palestinian territories” by the end of 2017 and for a comprehensive peace deal to be reached within a year. It also called for new negotiations to take place based on territorial lines that existed prior to the 1967 war in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip..

The resolution was submitted by Jordan after its endorsement by 22 Arab states and the Palestinian Authority.

After the vote, the Palestinian delegation claimed it had been surprised by Nigeria’s abstention. However, that was just a pretense. Nigeria had been persuaded some time ago by the US and Israel not to endorse the resolution. Indeed, shortly before the vote, the Israeli prime minister talked by phone to the rulers of Nigeria and Rwanda.

The vote was also a setback to the politicians running against Likud for the March 17 general election. They maintain tirelessly that Netanyahu has dragged Israel into international isolation and lost the ability even to raise an American veto against a hostile Security Council resolution.

His leading detractors on this score are the two Labor leaders Yitzhak Herzog and Tzipi Livni, the Future leader Yair Lapid and Yisrael Beitenu leader Avigdor Lieberman, although he serves as foreign minister in the Netanyahu government.

In fact, it turned out well before Tuesday night that the United States was perfectly ready to slap down its veto if the Abbas motion managed to gain nine votes. US Ambassador Samantha Power strongly rebuked the Palestinians for their action “because … peace must come from hard compromises that occur at the negotiating table,” she said.
The Palestinians may fare no better if they submit their motion again to the Security Council after Jan. 2015 in the hope of a more favorable reception by its new lineup. They may be in for a surprise from India. debkafile’s diplomatic sources report that Prime Minister Narendra Modi is considering abstaining or even opposing Abbas’ motion, seriously jolting the Palestinians who had always counted on India as a leading member of the nonaligned bloc of nations automatically acting as the backbone of their support in the world body.

India’s turnaround would represent another diplomatic feat for the Netanyahu government and demonstrate Israel’s real strength in Asia and the Middle East.

The French vote for the Palestinian motion was not unexpected. Paris is spearheading Europe’s anti-Israel stance in an attempt to boost its military ties with the Persian Gulf nations.

Straight after their fiasco in New York, the Palestinians announced their leaders would meet in Ramallah the next day and decide on their next step. Abbas proposes immediately applying to join the Rome Treaty to advance their bid for accredited statehood. One of his first actions would be to prosecute Israeli for war crimes at the International Court at the Hague.

American officials in Washington pointed out before the Council vote that the Palestinians are unlikely to get very far in their suit. The court’s standing is ambiguous: it is not recognized by the US, Israel, Russia, India or China and has held no more than 21 trials in decades. The court has so far evaded cases against national leaders responsible for the most heinous crimes and causing hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, like Syria’s Beshar Assad.

Even if the international court accepts the Palestinian case, they themselves will have opened the door to the prosecution of countless numbers of Palestinians responsible for decades of terrorism and other crimes against humanity.

Engaging Iran

December 31, 2014

Engaging Iran – Opinion – Jerusalem Post.

Attempts to engage with the mullahs who run the Islamic Republic will never succeed.

US President Barack Obama is pursuing a policy of dialogue with Tehran, an approach he inherited from his predecessor George W. Bush. The Obama regime, in response to the “charm offensive” of President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, has redoubled its push to engage with the Iranians.

This week we witnessed another American attempt.

In an interview with NPR Radio to mark the end of 2014, Obama said he did not rule out reopening the US Embassy in Tehran – should Iran choose to permanently end efforts to develop atomic bombs.

“I never say never, but I think these things have to go in steps,” the US president said of the possibility.

Obama said the Iranians should take advantage of the opportunity to lift international sanctions, “because if they do, there’s incredible talent and resources and sophistication inside of Iran and it would be a very successful regional power that was also abiding by international norms and international rules – and that would be good for everybody.”

For those of us with the mindset of a liberal democrat, Obama’s argument makes perfect sense. But totalitarian regimes work according to different rules. While leaders of liberal democracies use their charisma and the power of their arguments to garner support and build consensus, the dictator’s skills are different. Ruthlessness and a willingness to sacrifice any person, value or cause for the sake of maintaining control characterize the autocrat. Identifying and exploiting an opponent’s weaknesses are essential for survival.

Heads of state hailing from liberal democracies tend to project their own values onto dictators, convinced that, like themselves, dictators are ultimately governed by basic moral principles and can be reasoned with.

In contrast, totalitarian regimes see an attempt to compromise, to find a middle ground, as weakness that they are quick to exploit. Dictators must be stopped by force, history has shown.

In the late 1930s, Adolf Hitler interpreted Neville Chamberlain’s desperate attempts at appeasement as a sign that Britain was war-weary. Nazi Germany had to be categorically and unequivocally defeated.

In 1982, it was not appeasement that brought down the murderous regime in Argentina. It was Margaret Thatcher’s decision to go to war – and humiliatingly rout the junta’s forces – to reclaim Britain’s control over the Falkland Islands.

In the late 1990s, it was not “engagement” but NATO bomb strikes and military intervention that precipitated the fall of Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic.

In 2005, Hamas did not see Israel’s pullout from the Gaza Strip as an opportunity to end its aggression against the Jewish state and begin the fruitful task of building an independent Palestinian state. It saw it as a sign that Israelis were caving in to terrorism.

Similarly, attempts to engage with the mullahs who run the Islamic Republic will never succeed.

However, a military attack might not be the only way to stop its march toward atomic bombs. Iran’s population is educated, sophisticated, surprisingly pro-Western and, given the right conditions, might eventually shake off its violent, reactionary Islamic leadership.

While many factors contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, intense international pressure, particularly the activism of US Jewry for the release of refusniks and dissidents, helped. Many of the people persecuted under the Soviet regime became household names in the West – Andrei Sakharov, Natan Sharansky Edward Kuznetsov and Yosef Mendelevitch, for example.

But how many of us can name even one Iranian dissident? Human rights activists presently languishing in Iranian prisons must become known to the world.

Women’s rights activists such as Shiva Nazar Ahari and Laleh Hassenpour, bloggers such Siamak Mehr and Hossein Ronaghi-Maleki, and student activists such as Zia Nabavi and Navid Khanjani must become household names.

Raising world awareness about those the Islamic Republic is persecuting and making these people’s names and faces known, coupled with economic sanctions, might set in motion internal political processes that could lead to regime change. It definitely has a better chance of working than “engagement.”