Has the Muslim Brotherhood Changed?

by Jerrold L. Sobel

Apparently Secretary of State Hillary Clinton believes the Muslim Brotherhood is peaceful and committed to nonviolence. She said last week in Budapest: "We believe, given the changing political landscape in Egypt, that it is in the interests of the United States to engage with all parties that are peaceful and committed to nonviolence."

To see if she is correct in her outreach, and In search of a kinder, gentler organization, let's examine the Brotherhood from its outset; its leadership; its chartered principles. Its founder Hassan al-Banna was born the son of a pious Imam and part time watch maker on October 14, 1906 in Cairo Egypt. During the course of his 46 year life he would go on to have a profound effect on the Muslim world, an influence no less felt today

Influenced greatly by the religious teachings of his father, Shaykh Ahmad al-Banna, Hassan became deeply involved in politics at the early age of 12. An astute student of Islam, he graduated State Teacher's Training Center in 1923 and was granted admittance into Dar al-Ulum college. Later that year he came into contact with prominent Islamic scholars which helped shape his political, religious philosophy and would eventually lead to the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood five years hence.

A disciple of both Muhammad Rashid Rida and Muhammad Abduh, al-Banna was likewise vexed by the weakness of Muslim societies in the face of Western colonialism.

As did his mentors, al-Banna also believed the only way Islam could reverse its decline was to return to true religious purity. To accomplish this he urged his followers to forgo all things Western and secular and become more proactive denouncing atheism, Christianity, and Judaism in particular. Increasingly radical, in March of 1928, at the age of 22, al-Banna founded the Society of the Muslim Brotherhood. Quite tellingly and seemingly overlooked by the present administration, the Brotherhood immediately adopted the motto: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."

Contrary to remarks made by Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper on Thursday, Feb 10. The Muslim Brotherhood is not and never has been "a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam." Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezb'allah, and a host of other Islamic terror groups are a direct outgrowth of the teachings of Hassan al Banna and the Brotherhood. If Director Clapper did a bit more research before testifying so foolishly on Capitol Hill, he might have read the motto of this grandaddy of all terror organizations: What the Director was referring to as he steadfastly refused to label the Brotherhood a terrorist organization, he alone knows. In fact, there is not, and has never been a scintilla of secularization which can be attributed to the Muslim Brotherhood.

In his writings, al-Banna made it abundantly clear that freeing Egypt of Western secularism was not his final goal. He states unequivocally that his plan is to invade the Western heartland and, "struggle to overcome it until all the world shouts by the name of the Prophet and the teachings of Islam spread throughout the world....and all religion will be exclusively for Allah."

Most Americans are not aware of al-Banna but are quite familiar with the terrorist groups he spawned and the methods of those that adhere to his teachings. Over the past decades many Westerners have become so inured to these atrocities that few take the time to ponder where the inspiration for these dastardly acts came from. They do not have to look past the teachings of Hassan al-Banna.

Al-Banna's hateful rhetoric enlisted many followers during the 1930's in the hope of once again reviving the Caliphate that came crashing down following the defeat of the Ottomans at the conclusion of World War I. His two most prominent, or should I say infamous adherents were Nazi allies Hajj Amin al-Husseni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in the 1930's, and Sayyib Qutb, a prolific writer that echoed al-Banna's anti-Semitic, anti-Western, abhorrent sentiments to a tee.

During World War II, both he and al-Husseni greatly expanded the Brotherhood by associating it with the Third Reich and its hatred of Jews. From the outset, the Brotherhood began exchanging de facto ambassadors with the Nazis and joined them in covert operations against the Jews and the British. Where al-Husseni visited Hitler and organized SS Nazi divisions of Bosnian Muslims, al Banna provided Muslim translations of "Mein Kampf," and portrayed the Jew as a devil worshipping enemy of Allah.

Throughout the late 1940's the Brotherhood kept up incessant violence and agitation throughout Egypt. In one week alone 128 people were wounded during attacks mainly aimed against the British. Al-Banna himself eventually met the fate he so wantonly wrought upon others. On February 12, 1949 he was assassinated most likely by agents of the Egyptian monarchy, another object of his anger.

Some may ask, Can't people and groups change? Possibly James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence is right by refusing to label the Brotherhood a terrorist organization. Same for Secretary of State Clinton. Maybe today's Brotherhood is breeding a bunch of good guys.

Muslim Brotherhood party leader Mohamed Ghanem said on Iranian TV that Egypt should stop selling gas to Israel and prepare the Egyptian army for a war with the Jewish State

In 2008 Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammad Mahdi Akef in 2008 declared that that violence against civilians of the kind practiced by Osama Bin Laden is justified against "occupiers"(http://www.memritv.org/report/en/)2795.htm#_

In June 2010 Muslim Brotherhood Guidance Bureau member Essam El Erian announced that the border of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip should be opened.....Will Egypt soon cease preventing weapons from Iran flowing freely into Gaza?

In 2008 Muslim Brotherhood Executive Bureau member Mahmoud Ghozlan insisted that"women and non-Muslims don't have the right to lead or govern Muslim states."

In a 2008 interview by Supreme Guide Muhammad Mahdi Akef insisted that Copts could not lead Islamic states such as Egypt.

In a 2008 interview Muslim Brotherhood Executive Bureau member Mahmoud Ghozlan emphasized that homosexuality needed to be outlawed.

For those that agree with the Obama Administration's outreach and legitimization of the Muslim Brotherhood, here's some more good news. Yussuf al-Qaradawi, one of Islam's most controversial, anti-Semitic clerics returned to Egypt after years of exile in Qatar. Not back fifteen minutes, he immediately professed to tens of thousands in Tahrir Square that the military should immediately "open Egypt's border crossing with Gaza." Immediately, it was a done deal.

As September parliamentary elections loom, and with greater establishment and resources, the Muslim Brotherhood should pick up considerable power within the government. No doubt we'll soon be hearing a lot more from Yussuf al-Qaradawi. And no doubt, not soon after, we'll know if the Brotherhood has indeed changed or if they are the same today as they were back then.

Jerrold L. Sobel

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/has_the_muslim_brotherhood_changed.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Israel: The National State Dedicated to Jewish Survival

by JanSuzanne Krasner

Consider this question: "If the Israelis gave the Palestinians everything, would Jews be able to live in Palestine in peace?" Everything means giving all defense technology; all territories including Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, the Settlements, the Western Wall and other religious sites; water, all the oil, gas, and other natural resources of the land; and the right of return. Those who believe that the answer is "no" will understand that this presents the most compelling reason to defend Israel's right to be acknowledged as the "National Home of the Jewish People."

During PM Netanyahu's last visit to the US, his most impassioned words to President Obama and Congress was a plea for the Palestinians to recognize and accept the existence of Israel as a "Jewish state." It is not the indefensible '67 lines that is the basis of the stymied Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. The Hamas-Fatah unity agreement, forged to legitimize the Palestinian call for statehood in the UN, has exposed the truth about the negotiation failures. It is unwillingness of the Palestinians, not to mention the general Arab population, to accept any Jewish state or an agreement that does not include the 'right of return.'

In a recent commentary, TIME Magazine's senior editor Tony Karon questions: "Is Israel the National Home of the Jewish People." The debate over this question goes to the heart of a growing division in the Jewish-American community.

Karon offers the argument that it is only persecution that has driven Jews to find protection in Israel, not their desire to return to a Jewish homeland. Only 5.6 million of the world's population of 13.5 million Jews lives in Israel. He claims that in present day Western societies,

"the prime problem facing efforts to persuade the bulk of Jews to move to Israel may be the decline of anti-Semitism in the Western world. It seems increasingly far-fetched to suggest to third-generation Jewish Americans or Canadians, Britons or Frenchmen that theirs is a temporary, twilight existence in the countries of their birth and citizenship, a way station en route 'home' to Israel."

Karon uses this reasoning to justify why Israel should not be called the "National homeland of the Jewish People." By applying the same logic toward other nationalities, one would then believe that countries like Ireland and Lebanon, with more of their people living out of their respective countries, should no longer exist. And, Karon may not realize that anti-Semitism still flourishes even in countries where statistically there are no Jews, like Poland.

Karon thinks that anti-Semitism in Western societies is on the decline. This couldn't be further from the truth. The facts show that belligerent organized groups are taking direct aim at Israel to end the existence of a Jewish state. In the last decade, voices against Zionism have given rise to a tripling of anti-Semitic violence in Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Spain and Australia. And countries where Iranian influences (and links to neo-Nazi organizations) are being felt, like Venezuela, Hungary, Greece, France and Chile. Also noteworthy is that the US Congress, in a resolution back in 2009, acknowledged this growing threat throughout South America, including Bolivia and Argentina. Muslim immigration to America also brings with it a fast growing minority of anti-Semitic sentiment.

Karon, like many Americans, may be ill informed as to the growing anti-Zionist threat in universities and colleges that comes from the Muslim Student Association (MSA supported by the Muslim Brotherhood). Jewish students on many campuses in the US and Canada are severely intimidated by the aggression of these students who are backed up by their Middle East studies professors.

Just a decade ago, the Anti-Defamation League released a nationwide survey showing the number of Americans with anti-Semitic attitudes on the rise after a ten year decline, demonstrating a reason for concern that Jewish hatred persists in America. Abraham Foxman, ADL National Director said: "We are greatly concerned that many of the gains we had seen in building a more tolerant and accepting America have not taken hold as firmly as we had hoped, and have to some degree been reversed." 2009 FBI statistics has shown that of all the US (and Canadian) religious hate crimes the percentage against Jews has increased from 67% to 72%,

To make matters much worse for Jews and their future generations, growing global anti-Semitism has become deadly as their enemies pursue nuclear weaponry. Americans should not forget that Israel is still a very tiny country in the midst of 22 Arab countries spanning two continents, containing 325 million people with an anti-Semitic ideology that ranges between 90-100% of the populace. But, Karon points out that skeptics see Netanyahu's demand for recognition as a Jewish state as just another delaying tactic and not relevant to the peace talks.

It is Netanyahu who understands the severity of the situation and is committed to the protection and survival of the Jewish People. His stipulation that the Palestinians recognize and accept Israel as a Jewish state before effective negotiations can take place is imperative. The denial of Israel as the 'National Jewish Homeland' where the people are willing and able to defend the right to be a Jew will surely cause a domino effect. It will quickly embolden the enemies of Jews around the world. Even American Jews will be forced to make very hard decisions, much like Jews have had to make throughout the centuries as anti-Semitism ran rampant in the countries they lived in.

Karon recognizes America's general support of Israel, as well as the lack of concern, and in some cases apathy, third-generation American Jews have when it comes to that support...not to mention that few are interested in making Aliyah. This nonchalance coming from an assimilated Jewish community that feels relatively secure in the safety of American arms is very shortsighted. Jews have a propensity to forget history while history will not forget them. They must not fail to remember that there have been other times, in other places, where Jews had similar 'glory days'... but, eventually the ugly head of anti-Semitism caught up to them. Try telling European Jews who are now part of a new Diaspora that they are not in "a temporary, twilight existence."

Today, under Barack Obama's Presidency, American Jews are waking up to a new threat. Many are wondering if this Administration will throw Israel under the bus in support of Palestinian statehood and ever shifting Arab alliances. Whether Karon realizes it or not, he is making a classic case that conveniently falls into the hands of those who want to delegitimize and destroy the State of Israel. His blindness and uninformed opinion is frightening and could lead to the destruction of the Jewish State should Americans, not just Jews, buy into this argument. Then the question would become: "How safe are Jews around the rest of the world?"

So, one is not an alarmist to point out that the average American Jew may one day be confronted by the viciousness of anti-Semitism should Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state be denounced. That will be the time that Jews, both to the Right or Left, will be praying for the existence of a National Jewish state.

It seems that the world may have to come to terms with the fact that there many never be peace until the Arab world accepts that Jews of Israel are there to stay.

JanSuzanne Krasner

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/israel_the_national_state_dedicated_to_jewish_survival.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

31 Opportunities for Statehood Squandered in Favor of Genocide

by David Meir-Levi

There is an eerie déjà vu about an unmistakable and oft-repeated process in the Arab–Israel conflict. The process started in 1937 and has repeated itself with minor variations many times over the subsequent 74 years. The process is as follows: Arabs go to war with Israel, promising Israel’s destruction and the annihilation of its Jews. Israel wins the war and offers peace. Arab leaders reject Israel’s peace offer, renew their promises of destruction and annihilation; and after a while they go to war again, and lose again, and Israel again offers peace. Repeat this process 31 times and you have the history of the Arab-Israel conflict in a nutshell.

Unfortunately, this process never seems to make it to our mainstream media’s radar screen, nor into many of the classrooms of professors of Near Eastern Studies.

We see it in its most recent iteration in an April 3^rd article in The New York Times describing the Palestinian Authority’s much ballyhooed intention of demanding that the UN officially welcome into the family of nations and into UN membership the State of Palestine. Interestingly, the article was titled “In Israel, Time for Peace Offer May Run Out,” as though Israel had not already made numerous peace offers to the Palestinian Authority, and ought to do so quickly. The text of the article did make reference to an offer that Netanyahu’s government was preparing, and to the preemptive rejection of this future offer by Palestinian Authority leaders, who had no hesitation pointing out that they feel they can do better at the UN. But nowhere in the article was there any clarification that Arab leaders have a history, more than seven decades in length, of rejecting Israel’s repeated peace offers and squandering a grand total of thirty-one opportunities for the peaceful creation of a state for the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, alongside of Israel.

The first such opportunity arose in 1937 when the Peel Commission recommended the partition of British Mandatory Palestine west of the Jordan River. The Jews would get about 15% of that territory, with the other 85% going to the Arabs, and to a small corridor from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem that would remain under British Mandatory control. The Jews accepted the recommendation. The Arab leadership rejected the plan and escalated Arab violence against the British and Jews to a bona fide war: the “great Arab revolt.” Had the Arab leadership accepted the Peel Partition plan, there would have been an Arab state in 85% of Mandatory Palestine in 1937. The British suppressed the revolt with great cruelty.

The next opportunity came with the UN Partition Plan of November 29, 1947, and the UN’s non-binding General Assembly Resolution #181. This resolution gave c. 55% of Mandatory Palestine to the State of Israel for the Palestinian Jews, and the other c. 45% would be the state for the Arabs west of the Jordan River. The Zionists accepted. Arab leaders rejected the plan, went to war in high-handed defiance of the UN, and lost. Had they accepted, there would have been an Arab state in a bit less than half of Palestine in 1947.

But even in defeat, with their armies in disarray and with the nascent state of Israel in control of far more territory than had been intended by the UN Partition Plan, the Arab belligerents refused to make peace. Instead they agreed to what they triumphantly announced would be a mere temporary armistice. With this agreement came the third opportunity for an Arab state alongside of Israel. At the Rhodes Armistice Talks of 1949 the Israeli negotiators indicated that the newly conquered territory was negotiable, in exchange for recognition, negotiations without preconditions, and peace. The Arab representatives refused, confident that they would soon wipe out the Jewish State. Had they agreed to negotiations, there could have been an Arab state in somewhat less than half of Mandatory Palestine in 1949.

Ironically, it was the 6-Day War (6/5-10/1967) that offered the fourth opportunity for the creation of an Arab state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. A few days after the UN cease fire of 6/11/67, Abba Eban , Israel’s representative at the UN, made his famous speech.

He held out the olive branch to the Arab world, inviting Arab states to join Israel at the peace table, and informing them in unequivocal language that everything but Jerusalem was negotiable. Territories taken in the war could be returned in exchange for formal recognition, bi-lateral negotiations, and peace. The Arab representatives at the UN torched his olive branch.

Had the Arab states taken him up on his offer, there could have been peace and the possibility of the fulfillment of the UN General Assembly Resolution #181. Instead, the leaders of eight Arab states met in Khartoum, Sudan, in September, 1967 to discuss what they called the “new reality.” Their decision was no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it.

The first Camp David Accords offered the fifth opportunity. During 18 months of intense negotiations, ending on September of 1978, President Carter , Prime Minister Menahem Begin , and Egyptian President Anwar es-Sadat, thrashed out the text of a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt. In the context of this agreement, Menahem Begin agreed to a 3-month freeze on Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank. He also urged the PLO and Jordan to renounce the three Khartoum “NOs” and join Egypt in negotiations for a more comprehensive peace agreement. Israel offered a framework for negotiating accords to establish an autonomous self-governing authority in the West Bank and the Gaza strip, and to fully implement the UN’s binding Security Council Resolution #242. The accords recognized the “legitimate rights of the Palestinian people,” with implementation of those rights and full autonomy within five years, and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the West Bank and Gaza after the democratic election of a self-governing authority to replace Israel’s military government. Israel’s willingness to return the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in exchange for peace demonstrated definitively that its offers of territorial compromise for peace were not mere words. Nonetheless, Arafat refused.

The Fahd Plan, 8/1981, the Fez Plan, 9/1982, the Reagan Plan 9/1982, and the Brezhnev plan[i], 9/1982, all emerged in a flurry of diplomatic activity from July of 1981 to September of 1982. All called for a Palestinian state to be formed on parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. While the Fez Plan had the most moderate language and was considered a victory of Arab moderates, none of the plans gained traction in the Arab world and Arafat rejected Fez, Reagan and Brezhnev outright. Sources offer conflicting evidence regarding Arafat’s rejection of the Fahd plan[ii].

To be fair, it is important to note that Israel too rejected these plans. One cannot second guess history; so it is useless to speculate regarding what Israel’s reactions might have been had Arafat been willing to entertain any one of these four plans, to abandon terrorism and to join Israel at the negotiating table.

It is interesting to note that Arafat’s unilateral declaration of statehood for the Palestinian people on the West Bank and Gaza Strip , 11/15/1988, was greeted with much fanfare in the Arab world and the USSR. However, it was a PR ploy far more than a political move. While it enhanced Arafat’s stature, it did nothing to advance peace between Israel and the Arab world nor did it change any political realities on the West Bank and Gaza Stip. Israel rejected the declaration because it was unilateral and unconditional, offered no cessation of hostilities, insisted on pre-conditions that were unacceptable to Israel, and made no offer of negotiations.

In October, 1991, at the behest of the USA and USSR, Israeli, Syrian and Palestinian representatives met in Madrid to discuss peace and the creation of an independent political entity for the Palestinian people. The Palestinian delegates, although not members of the PLO, openly expressed their support for Arafat and were in constant contact with him in his exile in Tunis, sometimes flying there from Madrid to consult with him. Thus despite Israel’s reluctance to deal with him, Arafat controlled and directed the Palestinian contingent at Madrid. According to some sources, it was Arafat’s “red lines” beyond which no negotiations could be entertained, and across which no Palestinian representative could tread, that scuttled the Madrid talks. It was also Hamas’ rejection of the talks, and its call for strikes and other protest activity on the day that the talks began, that helped thwart the Israeli and American goals of the peaceful creation of an autonomous Palestinian entity on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Most analysts agree, however, that the Madrid talks did at least lay the groundwork for the Oslo Accords of September13, 1993, which were seen at the time as the beginning of a new era of peace and the foundation for the State of Palestine that would emerge from the Israel-PLO negotiations that were set in motion at Madrid.

In 1993, with Pres. Clinton’s support, Israel undertook negotiations in Oslo with Arafat for the creation of an autonomous Palestinian entity. The result was the first iteration of the Oslo Accords. The PLO became the Palestinian Authority (PA), and Arafat was brought out of his Tunisian exile to be the “rais” (head, leader) of the PA, with its capitol in Ramallah. In exchange, Arafat agreed to eschew terror, end incitement, disarm and dismantle the terrorist groups under his control, create a democratic Palestinian government, educate the next generation for peace, and settle all differences by negotiation, per his personal letter signed and handed to Rabin on September 9. Arafat immediately violated every one of the Oslo Accords and began a terror war against Israel with the first suicide bombing on April 6, 1994. This offensive grew into a full-blown terror war with the “2^nd Intifada”, which began on 9/29/2000 (see below).

In hindsight it is clear that Arafat had no interest in democracy or in peace. He used his new position as “rais” of the PA as leverage for personal enrichment and self-aggrandizement, and he used the Palestinian territories under his control as a launching pad for a renewed terror war against Israel.[iii] In this latter endeavor he was aided greatly by his partnership with Hamas.

Israel’s reply to Arafat’s continued terror war, despite his commitments at Oslo was “Oslo 2,” a re-convening of both sides on September 24, 1995 in Taba, Egypt, with Arafat again agreeing to halt terror attacks, end incitement, and handle all disagreements via peaceful negotiations. But he did not, and car bombs, suicide bombers, roadside bombs, kidnappings, sniper shootings, and stabbings continued to be his modus operandi for Palestinian independence.

Three years later, on October 23, 1998, at the Wye River Plantation, Israel and the USA worked again with Arafat to re-engage him on a diplomatic level and pressure him to uphold the commitments he made at Oslo. Per the Wye River Memorandum documenting that meeting Arafat agreed again to crack down on terrorism. In exchange for that renewal of his original promise, Israel agreed to withdraw from more of the West Bank. Arafat continued his terrorism partnership with Hamas, pretending that he could not control Hamas and was thus not responsible for continued terrorism. But for two more years, Arafat continued to sponsor terrorism against Israel, fund more than a dozen terror organizations, work hand in hand with Hamas, teach Palestinian children that Palestine included all of Israel, and pay the salaries of imams who preached the coming of the one last great and mighty jihad that would drive the Jews into the sea.

Ehud Baraq won the 1999 Prime Ministerial election on a “peace now” platform, and promptly signed the Sharm ash-Sheikh agreement on September 4, 1999, in which Arafat agreed for the fifth time to honor the Oslo Accords and implement the Wye River accords. They both agreed to a deadline of September 13, 2000 for a final treaty.

Then came the biggest and best ever opportunity for a state for the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the UN General Assembly Resolution #181 in 1947 – Camp David 2. From July 11 – 24, 2000 President Clinton presided over the second Camp David accords. Prime Minister Baraq made what Saudi Crown Prince Bandar bin Sultan called the best offer that Arafat could possibly expect[iv]. This was an historic offer, with Arafat receiving 97% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and 3% of Israeli land, and a Palestinian Authority capitol in East Jerusalem. All that was required of Arafat was an end to the conflict. He could not do it.

At Camp David, Dennis Ross has said, there was no comprehensive final settlement offered. The Israeli and American negotiators put forth ideas regarding borders, Jerusalem, and land transfers. One of those was a Palestinian state comprised of four cantons. Arafat rejected these suggestions, but did not raise a single idea himself. Shlomo Ben-Ami, one of Israel’s negotiators who took copious notes at the closed meeting and kept meticulous diaries of the proceedings, said that Clinton exploded at the Palestinians over their refusal to make a counteroffer. “‘A summit’s purpose,’ Clinton said, ‘is to have discussions that are based on sincere intentions and you, the Palestinians, did not come to this summit with sincere intentions.’ Then he got up and left the room.”

According to Ben-Ami, Israel tried to find a solution for Jerusalem that would be “a division in practice…that didn’t look like a division:” that is, Israel was willing to compromise on the issue, but needed a face-saving formula. The Palestinians, however, had no interest in helping the Israelis. To the contrary, they wanted to humiliate them. Nevertheless, Ben-Ami said Israel dropped its refusal to divide Jerusalem and accepted “full Palestinian sovereignty” on the Temple Mount and asked the Palestinians only to recognize the site was also sacred to Jews.

According to Denis Ross’ account[v], in his comprehensive and definitive exposition of the Camp David 2 proceedings, Arafat’s only contribution was the assertion that, in reality, no Jewish Temple ever existed on the Temple Mount, and the real Temple existed in Nablus. Not only did he not make any accommodation to Israel, Ross said, “he denied the core of the Jewish faith.” This stunning remark indicated to the Americans that Arafat was incapable of the psychological leap necessary — the one Anwar Sadat had made — to achieve peace. As a result, President Clinton’s press conference following the summit laid most of the blame for the outcome on Arafat. Clinton made it clear that the failure of Camp David 2 was Arafat’s fault, as did Ross.

There are some dissenting views about Arafat’s posturing[vi]; but even if these dissenting views were correct, the dynamics of the Camp David 2 negotiations remain unchallenged: Baraq offered, Arafat refused, and made no counter offer. And then he went to war.

The clearest demonstration of Arafat’s real intentions came with the outbreak of the 2^nd Intifada on September 29, 2000. In English Arafat spoke of the Oslo Accords as “the peace of the brave,” but in Arabic he told his people that the Accords were merely a ploy to give the PLO time to build its strength so that it could more effectively attack Israel in the future. And, indeed, just six months after the failed Camp David 2 negotiations, Arafat was deploying suicide bombers and shrieking on Arab television about the great “Day of Rage” and the renewed terror war that would soon bring Israel to its knees. The ferocity and frequency of suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks launched during the 2^nd intifada caught the IDF off guard; but after about 6 months, the Israeli military and other security forces were able to intercept and prevent most terror attacks. The fence around the Gaza Strip (built in 1996) and later the security barrier around much of the West Bank (started in 2002) were more than 90% effective in stopping attacks.

Again, Israel offered peace and Arabs went to war, and lost.

In a desperate attempt to quell the violence, President Clinton sent George Mitchell to the region on December 11, 2000. After whirlwind meetings with both sides, the Mitchell Commission proposed that Israel would stop building settlements and return to the negotiating table if Arafat would put an end to terror and return to the negotiating table. His report was published in May of 2001. Since an on-going PA complaint was the continued expansion of the Israeli settlement population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, this was an ideal time for Arafat to leverage the opportunity created by Mitchell’s visit, to restrain his terrorists and return to negotiations. Israel accepted the Mitchell Plan. Arafat continued the terror war.

In another attempt to use diplomacy to quell the 2^nd Intifada, Clinton suggested a “bridge plan” on December 23, 2000, to pave the way for a return to the negotiating table. This plan was similar to Baraq’s offers, and suggested a physical bridge elevated above Israeli territory connecting the northeast corner of the Gaza Strip with the southwest corner of the West Bank. In other ways as well it was more generous than the offers Israel made at Camp David 2 just a few months earlier.

Nonetheless, Arafat rejected it, and then had his spin-meisters tell the world that actually the plan was not a good one. Saudi crown prince Bandar bin Sultan thought otherwise, and told so to reporter Elsa Walsh of The New Yorker[vii]. So the Intifada continued and the pattern repeated itself: Clinton offers, Israel accepts. Arafat rejects, goes to war, and loses.

Still trying to use diplomacy to end the intifada and fulfill the vision of Oslo, Israel met with PA representatives at Taba, in Sinai, in January 28, 2001, where, by anecdotal ex-post-facto accounts, both sides were on the verge of agreement about many issues. Baraq tried to negotiate in good faith; but Arafat kept the Intifada raging, with from10 to 20 terrorist attacks per day. Arafat’s terror war cost Baraq the next election and brought Ariel Sharon to the Prime Minister’s office. The last meeting at Taba was on January 27, 2001, where Arafat’s team rejected the latest proposals from Baraq for Israeli concessions; but the talks closed with the expectation of further meetings.

Ironically, it is likely that the Taba talked demonstrated to Arafat that the intifada’s terrorist violence was a good tactic for the Palestinian Arabs. Dore Gold and Shimon Peres have noted that the more that Israel agreed to negotiations while Arafat continued to wage his terror war, and the more Israel offered greater and more comprehensive concessions at each negotiation, the more it became clear to Arafat that terror had its rewards.

On January 28, 2001, one day after the last meeting at Taba, Arafat and Shimon Peres (a former Prime Minister of Israel and serving at that time as the Minister for Regional Cooperation) participated in the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Both men delivered speeches at Davos. Shimon Peres gave a speech of peace and cooperation. Arafat, on the other hand, used Davos as a stage from which to launch a blistering attack on Israel. He falsely accused Israel of just about every barbarity imaginable and he blamed Israel for all of the violence of what by then had become known as the “al-Aqsa intifada. As Thomas Friedman of the New York Times said:

Mr. Peres did extend the olive branch, as planned, but Mr. Arafat torched it. … after the warm words of Mr. Peres [Arafat] made Mr. Peres look like a dupe, as all the Israeli papers reported.

Arafat’s outrageous speech at Davos ended any possibility of continuing the Taba negotiations. When he learned of the speech, Prime Minister Ehud Barak cut off diplomatic contact with Arafat until after the election. US Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal), a participant at the Davos Conference, made it clear in her speech to Congress on March 7, 2001 that Arafat had squandered a splendid opportunity for peace and statehood, and Israeli leaders had made every conceivable concession to induce him to stop his terror war and enter into serious negotiations. Ariel Sharon’s landslide victory on February 6, 2001 was due in part to Arafat’s speech at Davos.

For the 18^th time, Israel offered and Arab leaders refused. At Davos Arafat initiated a diplomatic war, and the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip once again missed an opportunity for peace and political self-realization.

On February 24, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell came on a special fact-finding mission.

The facts that he found were very straight-forward: “Prime Minister-elect Ariel Sharon showed openness and a willingness to leave his past behind, while PA Chairman Yasser Arafat is entrenched in stubborn positions and may not be doing everything possible to calm the situation.”

As Arafat’s terror war escalated, President Bush sent in the CIA. George Tenet, CIA director, came to Israel for another whirlwind round of talks, and proposed the “Tenet Plan” on June 13, 2001. Resumption of negotiations between Prime Minister Sharon and Arafat was conditioned upon a single week free of Arab terror attacks. Arafat could not bring himself to forego terrorism for even one week. In desperation, Sharon agreed to drop the demand for one week without terror attacks, but Arafat refused to do anything to stop his terror war. The plan failed.

Israel’s reprisals to a sudden spate of sequential Palestinian terror attacks in early 2002 seem to have prompted a ground-breaking UN resolution, initiated by Secretary General Kofi Anan. UN Security Council Resolution #1397, 3/12/2002, called upon Israel to end its “occupation” of Palestinian territory and upon Arafat to end his “morally repugnant acts of terror.” The resolution affirmed a “vision of a region where two States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side with secure and recognized borders.” It further demanded the immediate cessation of violence, terror, incitement, provocation and destruction, urging both sides to co-operate in the implementation of the Tenet and Mitchell plans.

This was the second time in its history that the UN called for a two-state solution. James Zogby , President of the Arab American Institute, noted that “…there is a positive and constructive role for Arab leadership to play at this stage. What is needed is a strategy designed to win the political and diplomatic battle… These objectives can best be accomplished by serious political engagement.” But Arafat was interested in no such engagement. The terrorism continued and the UN call for the creation of a State of Palestine via peaceful negotiations went unheeded, even by the leaders of the people who would most benefit from it — the Palestinians.

Even the Saudis joined the “make peace, not war” initiatives. On March 27, 2002, the Arab League met in Beirut to discuss an idea that originated with Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (apparently arising from an informal conversation with reporter Thomas Friedman). The Beirut Declaration demanded of Israel the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from all “occupied territories” back to the 1949 armistice lines, a solution to the “Palestinian refugees” problem, and the creation of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In return the Arab states would consider the Arab-Israel conflict over, sign a peace agreement with Israel and establish normal relations with Israel.

Israel’s response was guarded but positive. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon publicly announced that he was willing to meet Saudi officials, publicly or behind the scenes, to explore the proposal, and Defense Minister Ben-Eliezer indicated that the plan was positive and worth pursuing. Other members of the Israeli government called for immediate dialogue with the Saudis about the plan, stating that it was a positive trend and a new opportunity. The Israeli government, in response to the plan, re-opened negotiations with the PA to stop violence, but Arafat cancelled the meetings.

Coincidentally, or perhaps by design, a suicide bomber self-detonated at the Park Hotel in Netanya, during a Passover Seder, killing thirty Israeli civilians and injuring 140, on the same day that the Saudi initiative was adopted by the Arab League. That and almost a dozen other terror attacks in quick succession over the next two days put an end to any consideration of the “new opportunity” and drove Israel to re-occupy the West Bank in Operation Defensive Shield on March 29.

David Meir-Levi

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/07/15/31-opportunities-for-statehood-squandered-in-favor-of-genocide/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Alice Walker, the War Against the Jews, and Human Sacrifice

by David Swindle

“My mother is very ideologically based, and her ideology is much more important in many ways than her personal relationships.” – Rebecca Walker.

In the 1960s, The Color Purple novelist and activist Alice Walker married a Jewish man and gave birth to a biracial baby, Rebecca. Now more than 40 years later, the couple is long-divorced, the mother and half-Jewish daughter are estranged, and the Pulitzer-Prize-winning Alice is the celebrity sponsor of a movement committed to the destruction of the Jewish state. How could Alice make such a profound shift from joining a Jewish family to aiding in the Jewish people’s annihilation? Perhaps it is not that Alice changed. Rather, the political religion that served as her anchor suffered a radical devolution since the colorblind dream of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

In 1967, Alice was an aspiring novelist, poet, and political activist who married Mel Leventhal, a Jewish civil rights attorney whose parents fled the Holocaust. The couple chose to relocate from New York City to Jackson, Mississippi, a provocative act given that miscegenation laws had just recently been overturned in Loving vs Virginia. Leventhal spent many nights awake with a shotgun should the Klan choose to come after them. In November of 1969, Rebecca was born, and she notes in her 2001 memoir, Black White and Jewish, that it was “seventeen months after Dr. King was shot.”

The union of Alice and Mel was not to last. In 1976 the couple divorced. The seeds of the failed marriage can be seen in the ideological shifts of the period. The 1970s saw both of Alice’s movements take much harder, Marxist turns. The Civil Rights cause under King’s leadership was one of interracial unity. By 1976 Black Power was the dominant message and a white, Jewish husband was viewed with suspicion. The Feminist movement had also grown more radical, influencing Alice to resent her role as wife and mother. In an article for the Daily Mail in 2008, Rebecca described a traumatic discovery:

I was 16 when I found a now-famous poem she wrote comparing me to various calamities that struck and impeded the lives of other women writers. Virginia Woolf was mentally ill and the Brontes died prematurely. My mother had me - a ‘delightful distraction’, but a calamity nevertheless. I found that a huge shock and very upsetting.

This left-inspired rejection of motherhood pervaded Rebecca’s rocky adolescence moving forward. Her parents came up with an unusual arrangement that only exacerbated the feelings of isolation she already had as a biracial child. From elementary through high school Rebecca went back and forth between the Bohemian artist world of her San Francisco-based mother and the more stable middle class Jewish life of her father in New York. She would spend two years building herself and her identity only to have to leap back across the country to reinvent herself.

Black White and Jewish depicts such a life not just in its story but in its tone and style as well. The book is more than 300 pages of fragmentary childhood and adolescent recollections. The average chapter is only a few pages long and the voice maintained throughout is one of a scared child unable to piece together a coherent narrative of the life forced upon her by “movement” parents. It’s not until the last 30 pages that Rebecca finally starts to provide some insights into the chaotic life her parents provided.

Alice putting her leftist ideology before her parental responsibilities had very real consequences. Since her parents rarely set any boundaries for her, Rebecca experimented with drugs and sex early on. At 14, Rebecca had an abortion, an event she describes as something that traumatized her:

Although I believe that an abortion was the right decision for me then, the aftermath haunted me for decades. It ate away at my self-confidence and, until I had Tenzin, I was terrified that I’d never be able to have a baby because of what I had done to the child I had destroyed. For feminists to say that abortion carries no consequences is simply wrong.

It was the birth of Rebecca’s first child, Tenzin, in 2004 that would finally collapse the already-shaky relationship between a Pulitzer-prize-winning mother and her “calamity” of a daughter. Just as Alice saw her own marriage and Rebecca’s birth primarily as political acts, she also brought this same approach to Tenzin, her grandchild. Rebecca’s choice of parenthood over more time for writing and political activism is a rejection of her mother’s ideology.

According to Rebecca, her mother withheld giving her blessing or encouragement in Spring of 2004 when she first learned of the pregnancy. Over the course of the year, tensions between the two rose, culminating in a formal letter from Alice rejecting her. Rebecca wrote,

… she wrote me a letter saying that our relationship had been inconsequential for years and that she was no longer interested in being my mother. She even signed the letter with her first name, rather than ‘Mom’.

That was a month before Tenzin’s birth in December 2004, and I have had no contact with my mother since. She didn’t even get in touch when he was rushed into the special care baby unit after he was born suffering breathing difficulties.

Rebecca has since been written out of her mother’s will.

In the years following their estrangement Rebecca and Alice have both developed different responses to the war against the Jews, each keeping with their generational experiences.

Alice is the most high profile “peace activist” who had declared her intent to sail this summer with the failed “Free Gaza Movement” (FGM) flotilla. She has also adopted rhetoric and positions on Israel so strident that even leftist Jews accuse her of anti-Semitism. The radical “rabbi” Michael Lerner regretted giving her a chance to speak on Yom Kippur – Alice used the occasion to claim without evidence that Israeli soldiers raped Palestinian women. This is hardly an anomaly among Alice’s positions. She is comfortable with open anti-Semitism. Consider her response to a Palestinian woman thanking her for a gift with a sentiment common to the region:

Looking into my eyes she said: May God protect you from the Jews. When the young Palestinian interpreter told me what she’d said, I responded: It’s too late, I already married one.

Like her influences in the FGM and International Solidarity Movement (ISM), Walker rejects a two-state solution, arguing that Israel’s defense from jihadist attacks has disqualified it from continuing to exist. She recently characterized Israel and the United States as the “greatest terrorist organizations.”

Just as Rebecca rejects her mother’s radical feminism, she also dissents on foreign policy. When reporters sought her reaction to her mother’s plans to participate in the flotilla, she posted this entry at her blog. Scarred from her experiences as a “Movement child” Rebecca refuses to take sides (even apparently against an enemy committed to exterminating her):

My heart goes out to those who, like myself, have concerns about the actions of individuals and governments who perpetuate suffering and forestall the potential for world peace.

Perpetuate suffering. Like the suffering of a family sacrificed for a life dedicated to a political dream? Like the suffering of a daughter who was only a disposable political symbol? Like the suffering of a grandchild who will grow up knowing his famous grandmother cared more about allegedly suffering anti-Semites than him?

Alice’s engagement with the FGM’s anti-Israel flotilla follows a two-part pattern that runs throughout her life. First, embrace whatever is the dominant, progressive ideology. Alice was a King follower in the ‘60s, a Black Power and radical feminism follower in the 1970s, and now she’s an anti-Israel activist in 2011. In the age of Barack Obama, the only logical thing for trend-following leftists like Alice to do is focus on Israel as the cause du jour of the day. Otherwise they would be forced to continue with the issues they utilized during the Bush administration. To have to start criticizing Obama for maintaining much of his predecessor’s foreign policy would instantly make progressives racists, since according to their own rules any disagreement with the president’s self-evidently rational public policies can only flow from feelings about his skin color.

Second, place the cause above everything else. If Leftism is committed to the destruction of free countries, it’s safe to say that the first lives on the sacrificial altar are the “progressives” themselves. Everything is on the chopping block: marriage, daughter, grandchild, and even personal security. Alice has surrendered them all. The only path that remains for her is the one chosen by Rachel Corrie.

David Swindle

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/07/15/alice-walker-the-war-against-the-jews-and-human-sacrifice/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Mumbai Bombings’ Message

by Ryan Mauro

The terrorists behind the three bombings in Mumbai on July 13 that killed at least 23 people obviously want to torpedo any dialogue between India and Pakistan, but the Pakistani government (or at least the ISI and other extremist factions) may want to send a message: You need us.

The attacks came around the anniversary of the July 11, 2006 train bombings that killed over 200 people in Mumbai. A leader of a group called the Indian Mujahideen (IM) confessed to his role in this attack, and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET) has also been linked. The latter displayed its lethality with its sophisticated attacks on Mumbai in November 2008 that killed 164 people. Suspicion for these latest attacks is falling upon the IM, but the LET may have used the IM as a front, given their close links.

“When LET’s terrorists were arrested, ISI had a problem internationally. So their strategy was to train more and more people of Indian origin,” said New Delhi Joint Police Commissioner Karnail Singh in 2008. Top IM leaders, specifically the Bhatkal brothers, are currently sheltered by the LET in Karachi. India’s Intelligence Bureau has even suspected that IM is made up altogether by the LET and presumably, its Pakistani backers.

The attacks happened shortly before scheduled meetings between the Indian and Pakistani foreign ministers on July 26. They are believed to be part of a campaign called the “Karachi Project,” which was conceived by the LET and retired officers from the Pakistani army. The IM has also been linked to Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami, an Al-Qaeda affiliate. Rising jihadist star Ilyas Kashmiri served as the group’s operational commander until he was killed in a drone strike on June 3. Kashmiri sought to spark a war with India to halt Pakistan’s counter-terrorism operations. This should also be considered an objective of the perpetrators.

The LET operates openly in Pakistan under the name of Jamaat ud-Dawa, and is unlikely to undertake an operation that would result in the loss of its safe harbor. The LET’s leader still preaches to the public, and the group has boasted of having over 200 facilities in the country, including schools, hospitals and charities. The Long War Journal says the group “essentially runs a state within a state.” If the Pakistani government, or factions inside of it, approve of the operation, then they are also trying to send a message.

The relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan is at the breaking point. The Obama administration has suspended $800 million in aid, some of which was supposed to reimburse the Pakistanis for the cost of operating their military along the border with Afghanistan. Pakistan is threatening to pull its forces back now, and is also pushing the U.S. to end the drone strikes. The director of the ISI warned, “We will be forced to respond if you do not come up with a strategy that stops the drone strikes.” The Pakistanis are also hinting that they will look to China to replace the relationship with the U.S.

If elements of the Pakistani government sanctioned the July 13 attacks on Mumbai, then the bombings are a form of a shakedown. The U.S. and its allies are being told to stop pressuring Pakistan or suffer. It also means that the Pakistanis should be expected to reinforce their message by loosening whatever weak handcuffs they had on groups fighting NATO in Afghanistan. Pakistan’s goal would be to force the U.S. to come crawling back, as well as to exert influence through proxies.

This does not mean that the U.S. should backtrack and stop pressuring Pakistan. When CIA Deputy Director Michael J. Morell was asked to rate Pakistan’s cooperation on a 1-10 scale, he gave them a 3. That’s not worth the $2.7 billion in military assistance given to Pakistan every year. Even now, Pakistan is refusing to shut down the terrorist camps that the U.S. has pinpointed.

It is simply offensive that, after the killing of Osama Bin Laden on its territory, Pakistan is being even more duplicitous and yet still expects the money to keep flowing. The U.S. should not hesitate to eliminate terrorist camps and leaders on Pakistani soil. Our soldiers serving in Afghanistan shouldn’t have to put their lives on the line while the Pakistan-based camps and safe havens that allow the enemy to kill them remain immune from attack. The U.S. needs to defend and expand its drone campaign, and remind the Pakistanis that the only reason the drone strikes are necessary is because of their own inaction.

The Mumbai bombings are a reminder why the war on terrorism cannot focus solely on Al-Qaeda, and why the vast network of non-Al-Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan must be dismantled. The Pakistanis should be told that they have one final chance to take their counter-terrorism obligations seriously. If they do not, then the U.S. will do Pakistan’s job for them, and their complaints will fall on deaf ears.

Ryan Mauro

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/07/15/the-mumbai-bombings-message/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Iraq Weathers the Political Storm

by Sterling Jensen

The Middle East political storm of early 2011 has had an interesting impact on Iraq. Though the government was confronted with almost daily demonstrations, which led to a number of high profile resignations and the use of force to suppress political dissent, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki felt sufficiently confident to boast that "Iraq has become the most stable country in the region."[1] While this may seem a bold claim given the recent past, Maliki is not alone in showing confidence in Iraq's prospects. The Sadrists, Kurds, and leaders of the primarily Sunni Iraqiya bloc have been equally upbeat about the country's prospects while many Iraqi insiders believe that their battle-torn country will not only weather the instability but will also serve as a model for democracy.

Indeed, the democratic system established in Iraq through its second elected government in six years is becoming more representative and responsive to the people. While the country still has many sectarian and political differences to resolve in order to ensure its long-term stability, this system is likely to last due to four main elements: a representative government, an independent and transparent media, a professional security force, and a close relationship with the United States.

An Elected Government

Iraqis were euphoric after the successful national elections of March 2010. Most local media stations, regardless of political slant, aired sound bites and discussions hailing the elections as blazing a democratic path for other Arab countries to follow. That euphoria quickly wore off as controversy over the election results and eight months of party negotiations followed. By December, media reports about the political process had become more depressing and fears of a new Maliki dictatorship grew. Yet once the government was formed, most Iraqis gave it a month-long honeymoon. During that period in mid-January, public demonstrations in Tunisia successfully removed Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, their 23-year dictator, from power. Then in February, Husni Mubarak resigned in Egypt following protests. With an Arab League summit planned to take place in Baghdad at the end of March, Iraqi politicians, who had urged their own government to reform, also preached to their Arab counterparts on the need to learn from the Iraqi democracy.

The key for Washington will be to reinforce the importance of free and fair elections. In response to Arab instability, many government officials, including Maliki, called for the delayed local elections to take place.[2] This is not the way ahead; Washington should help Iraqis prepare for local elections, then direct attention toward national elections in 2014. Following Mubarak's departure, Maliki announced he would not seek a third term.[3] His statement of intent may help Iraq with a peaceful transfer of power in 2014, and Washington should press the prime minister to keep his word.

Independent and Transparent Media

Iraq experienced its first nationwide demonstrations on February 25, 2011, in part in Baghdad's Tahrir Square. Prime Minister Maliki, who had previously encouraged citizens to exercise their constitutional rights to demonstrate peacefully—even against him—made an abrupt turnaround, and two days before what Iraqi organizers called the "Day of Rage," patterned after the Egyptian "Revolution of Rage," which started on January 25, decried the forthcoming event as a provocation by terrorists and Baathists. This ploy failed, and while there were scattered incidents of violence, such as the deadly clashes in Mosul[4] and the desecration of public property in Kut,[5] the demonstrations have been relatively peaceful. Whenever the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) used excessive force, the domestic media gave extensive coverage to public outrage and dissatisfaction, driving the alarmed government to denounce any violations and to promise fact-finding investigations. Governors, mayors, and city councils resigned due to pressure from demonstrators,[6] and the government significantly altered the 2011 budget to spend more on investment and immediate financial assistance in order to appease public demands.

This responsiveness would not have been forthcoming had there not been an independent and transparent media. The gap between the government and the people would have been much more difficult to bridge had the people been fed only state propaganda as in Libya, Egypt, and Syria.

Iraq's continued path to democracy and improved human rights will require U.S. and international pressure to keep the Iraqi media open and free. And while Washington has been reluctant to criticize the government, as it ends one of its most controversial and costly wars, it must not lose sight of the free media's role as democracy's watchdog.

A More Professional Security Force

While the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) have come a long way from the days of sectarian death squads in 2004-08,[7] they have yet to establish the trust required to be considered a neutral and purely national force. Rather than being seen as sectarian, the ISF are now accused of politicization. As witnessed during the Day of Rage, and despite the government's attempt to portray them as neutral protectors of the people, the ISF proved more loyal to the incumbent political parties than to the people they were supposed to protect.[8] On a positive note, when violations occurred, such as firing on demonstrators or closing down political offices, the media and public pressure have provided checks on the parties' use of the ISF for political purposes.

As long as the media remains free and the government representative, the ISF will become more apolitical. The respect the Egyptian army was shown by demonstrators was not overlooked in Iraq. During Iraq's wave of demonstrations beginning with the Day of Rage, the majority of Iraqi television stations aired both demonstrators and members of the ISF voicing their hope to act as the Egyptian army and not suppress or prevent peaceful protests.[9]

Notwithstanding Maliki's invocation of al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) to discredit the demonstration, AQI and other violent groups have not used the protest to carry out high profile attacks. Mullah Nathem Jabouri, a former AQI religious leader, argued that while the organization would love to blow up a Tahrir Square packed with thousands of Shiites, it would not do so because the demonstrations were also undermining public trust in the ISF and the government.[10]

In order to gain, rather than lose, trust from the demonstrations, the government will need to implement reforms and resist the impulse to use the ISF to quell public protest. Moreover, for Iraq to continue on the path of democracy, the ISF will need to be more disciplined and politically neutral, especially during public demonstrations. For their part, the United States and NATO should maintain their close relationship with the ISF so as to allow it to become more professional, which leads to the fourth element in guaranteeing Iraq's future as a stable democracy.

Closer to Washington, Further from Tehran

There is a growing fear among some experts, especially in the Persian Gulf states, that the Iranian regime's attempts to exploit the Arab instability will pull Baghdad closer to Tehran. In fact, the revolutions have taken Baghdad one step closer to Washington. Thus, for example, Jassib Moussawi, a prominent professor at Baghdad University, argued on state-run Iraqiya television in late February, just after Mubarak's resignation, that "the U.S. neo-con plan to democratize the Middle East and help Arab human development has succeeded, and Iraq should strengthen its ties with the U.S. in order to become more of a model of democracy for the countries in the region." He even urged the Iraqi parliament to extend the security agreement with the United States beyond 2011, all on the state-run TV station.[11] Statements such as these have become increasingly common in the Iraqi media.[12]

The Iraqi government wants greater regional respect and reassertion of its position in the Arab world. The nascent trend toward democracy and open society will place Baghdad more in the Western camp than in Tehran's. Though at odds with Washington's Persian Gulf allies, notably Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain, due to their reluctance to accept a Shiite-led government, Baghdad will continue to side with Washington rather than with Tehran as it develops its democratic potential still further. Iraq's state television and Shiite politicians both condemned Tehran's use of force against the Iranian opposition in February 2011,[13] and they have been much more vocal about Bahrain's use of force against the emirate's Shiite majority.[14] While Sunnis and anti-Iranians might see this strong stance against Bahrain as an indication of Baghdad's propensity to support Iranian interests in the region, it is important to distinguish between Iraqi and Iranian solidarity on Shiite issues and their distinct individual national interests. Baghdad will show its solidarity with Tehran on Shiite-related issues in the region, but it will not do so at the expense of weakening its own political development. As Iraq achieves greater domestic stability, the government can be expected to display more confidence in its Shiite-led democracy that weakens, rather than strengthens, Tehran.

Conclusion

The Arab revolutions have given the Iraqi government added confidence that it will emerge from the last eight years of conflict stronger and more capable of playing a leading role in the Middle East in the next decade or two. Baghdad sees itself as an emerging economy and democracy that will need assistance from Washington and other Western states to accomplish these aspirations; and while Iraqi energy officials may be overly optimistic in predicting the daily export of ten million barrels of oil by 2021, exporting even half that quantity would greatly boost Iraq's geopolitical weight.

The Persian Gulf states would be wise to stop viewing Iraq through a sectarian lens. If Baghdad is able to resolve its internal disputes peacefully and improve government efficiency through modest reforms, its future will be bright. An open media will help the people keep the government honest, and free and fair elections will make it more representative. U.S. administrations will need to stay close at hand although the U.S. relationship will no longer be based on security. Proximity to Washington will help check the government's impulse to use the ISF for political purposes, silence the media, or not fully implement needed government reforms. Although the withdrawal of U.S. troops makes it easier for Baghdad to defy Washington, it is likely to rely on U.S. assistance in its attempt to become the model of Arab democracy it is beginning to approach.

[1] Iraq Daily Times (Baghdad), Mar. 23, 2011.
[2] See, for example, The Boston Globe, Mar. 1, 2011.
[3] Middle East Online (London), Feb. 6, 2011.
[4] The Guardian (London), Feb. 25, 2011.
[5] Dawn (Karachi), Feb. 26, 2011.
[6] Middle East Online, Feb. 27, 2011; The Washington Post, Feb. 27, 2011.
[7] The Times (London) Feb. 16, 2006; BBC News, Feb. 16, 2006.
[8] The Christian Science Monitor (Boston), Feb. 25, 2011.
[9] Baghdadiya TV (Baghdad), Feb. 25, 2011; Sharqiya TV (Baghdad), Feb. 25, 2011.
[10] Author telephone interview with Mullah Nathem Jabouri, Mar. 2, 2011.
[11] Jassib Moussawi interview, Iraqiya TV (Baghdad), Feb. 18, 2011.
[12] Hassan Snayd, Abdul Hadi Hamani, and Mahmood Othman, Sharqiya TV, Apr. 7, 2011; Borhan Mizher, Hurra Iraq TV (Baghdad), Mar. 29, 2011.
[13] Iraqiya TV, Feb. 15, 16, 2011.
[14] TVNZ (Auckland, New Zeal.), Mar. 17, 2011; Kuwait Times (Kuwait City), Mar. 21, 2011.

Sterling Jensen worked in Iraq in 2006-08 as a contract interpreter and civilian foreign area officer for the U.S. Marines. He is currently a research associate at the Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies in Washington, D.C., and a PhD candidate at King's College London.

Source: http://www.meforum.org/2991/iraq-political-upheaval

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.