Being an Israeli and a Jew in 2012: Let’s Face Reality Without Illusion, Shrug, and Move Forward

by Barry Rubin

While you probably already know what I’m about to say, it is useful to reinforce and pull together the pieces of reality we face.

It is the year 2012, which seems to be going by very fast and is already one-fourth finished. People are walking around with smart phones and all sorts of electronic devices undreamed of not long ago. There has been what is called an “Arab Spring” stoking fantasies about instant democracy. An African-American was elected president of the United States, and that was after his party’s nomination, and thus probably the White House, almost went to a
woman!

Times have changed.

Yet the hysterical hatred for Israel in the Arabic-speaking world and among Muslims in general has only increased; the philosophy of rejectionism is as strong as ever or, put another way, even stronger. Indeed, it is no longer safe, and certainly isn’t comfortable, for Jews in much of Europe and even, for those who support Israel, on American college campuses.

Two examples of how the lynch mobs are out in force in places where formerly they were least present.

In previously moderate Tunisia, now under Muslim Brotherhood rule, thousands of Salafists paraded, chanting to kill the Jews in order to enter paradise. The new Tunisian constitution contains a provision that the country could never recognize Israel. Almost a half-century ago, Tunisia’s then leader was the first Arab politician to call for recognizing Israel. We’re still waiting.

In Morocco, perhaps the overall most moderate country in the Arabic-speaking world, a meeting of the Mediterranean Parliamentary Union was held. Israel, which has a parliamentary system and is on the Mediterranean (I can see the sea from my roof), is a member of this group. Consequently one Israeli attended the meeting. The result was a riot in which thousands of Moroccans assaulted the building and the leader of the ruling Islamist party complained at how the country’s soil had been tainted.

I won’t bother citing a thousand other examples. But with the triumph of revolutionary Islamists and the throwing down the memory hole of decades of disastrous Arab anti-Israel policies, the Arabic-speaking world is becoming more radical on this issue. It is now joined by Turkey and Iran.

They hate us; they despise us; they want to kill us.

Yawn.

In this situation there is a strong temptation for Westerners to say that if only Israel didn’t exist (radical version) or if it made huge concessions (liberal version) then all of the problems in the Middle East would go away and all the region’s conflicts with the West would go away, too.

And in this situation there is a strong temptation for Western Jews to say that if only Israel made more concessions on territory or tore down the settlements there would be peace; hate would turn into love or at least benign indifference, and all the problems of the Jews would go away.

And in this situation there is a total temptation for Western leftists—including a disproportionate number of Jews among them—that if only Israel disappeared or made huge concessions than socialist utopia would come speedily in our time.

In fact, for the first time in history we are seeing a concerted, well-funded campaign to destroy the base of support for Israel among American Jews. It is rather ironic that this is happening in 2012.

After all, Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula, southern Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, and parts of the West Bank. Since 1993, Israel has not established a single new settlement nor expanded the geographic size of existing settlements. Israeli governments offered (twelve years ago!) to accept a Palestinian state in all of the Gaza Strip, almost all of the West Bank, and in much of east Jerusalem.

And so on.

Now we are told by the highly publicized and very smug that if only there is an economic boycott of settlements, Israel will be saved.

We are not told that if only there is a willingness among Arabs and Muslims to make peace, plus the total defeat of the revolutionary Islamists, peace is far more likely to be achieved.

That real solution has two differences from the first one:

–There is literally nothing we can do, no concession or risk, which will bring about that outcome.

–Thus, we do not have the power in our hands to resolve this conflict. We can stand up, sit down, walk by the way, or return to the 1967 borders and it won’t matter.

About 25 years ago, I was convulsed with laughter when covering a Palestine National Council meeting in Algeria while watching a young American Jewish Peace Now kid try to explain to a group of Fatah guys that they really did just want a state of their own to live alongside Israel. They kept explaining to him that this wasn’t the way they thought at all. They wanted “all of Palestine from the river to the sea.”

This well-meaning boob thought he knew better than the Palestinians what was their actual political stance.

It is not comforting to acknowledge that there simply isn’t going to be any formal peace agreement or end of the conflict. I won’t say “never” but I’m pretty sure for the next 30 to 50 years, and somewhat less certain for the rest of this century.

But, of course, in time antisemitism in Europe went away—oops! It didn’t, but you know what I mean.

Does saying these things make me “right-wing”? Not at all. It is also the consensus position of the great majority of left-of-center Israelis and it should be the position of liberal Jews in other countries. The whole point is that this is not a matter of our will or preference or program but something that is being forced upon us.

Sure, I want a two-state solution, but not as a launching pad for the next round of would-be genocide. I want the ideal solution of peace and good neighborhood but I don’t expect that is going to happen. Not my fault; not our fault.

Let’s face reality, stop blaming ourselves, and get on with our lives. Let us improve Israel’s society, economy, and culture. Of course, let’s also defend ourselves. Let us try to preserve as much as possible of the rapidly disappearing Jewish people. And if you want to boycott someone, why not start with those who insist on remaining our enemies and who would like to murder us?

Makes sense to me.

This article was printed in the Jerusalem Post in a different version.

Barry Rubin

Source: http://www.gloria-center.org/2012/04/6275/

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

Leftist Bishop Rejects Anti-Israel Divestment

by Mark D. Tooley

While the United Methodist Church and Presbyterian Church (USA) denominations will ponder anti-Israel divestment at their conventions this year, the Episcopal Church’s Presiding Bishop opposes divestment.

“The Episcopal Church does not endorse divestment or boycott,” Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori recently told a Los Angeles group. “It’s not going to be helpful to endorse divestment or boycotts of Israel. It will only end in punishing Palestinians economically.”

Although often left-wing and politicly correct, the Episcopal Church’s chief prelate and other officials, maybe mindful of interfaith relations with Jewish leaders, have typically steered away from the worst anti-Israel zeal. Unlike the Methodist and Presbyterians, the Episcopalians will not seriously consider divestment at their own convention this year.

Speaking to a Middle East Peacemakers luncheon, Schori was obliged to make the usual calls for “dialogue” and to imply moral equivalence between Israel’s struggle to exist versus Palestinian calls for its eradication. “We can urge Israel to freeze the settlement activity,” she suggested, according to Episcopal News Service. “We can urge the Palestinian Authority to recognize Israel’s right to exist. We can condemn violence everywhere.”

But strikingly unlike others on the Religious Left, she did not demonize Israel, or glowingly embrace pro-Palestinian Liberation Theology. “We can urge our legislators and government to encourage dialogue between Israeli and Palestinian leaders,” she opined. “We can urge them to refrain from de-funding hopeful initiatives.” And she urged positive investment in “legitimate development in Palestine’s West Bank and in Gaza.” Schori called for a “two-state solution with a dignified home for Palestinians and for Israelis.” Meanwhile, some on the Religious Left are increasingly inclined towards admitting their support for a “one-state” solution that would demographically eradicate Israel’s Jewish democracy.

As Bishop Schori was urging relative moderation, the harder line Religious Left was backing the March 30 “March on Jerusalem.” It is hoping to mobilize many thousands to denounce Israel’s ostensible “Apartheid, ethnic cleansing and Judaisation policies.” Besides backing from former Obama pastor Jeremiah Wright and Christian Socialist Cornel West of Union Seminary, the march is backed by Friends of Sabeel – North America (FOSNA). Presbyterian minister Don Wagner is the FOSNA national program director and recently denounced Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren’s Wall Street Journal column that noted Christians are increasing inside Israel but declining in Muslim-majority Palestinian territory.

“Palestinian Christians and Muslims have been living together in harmony for centuries in what we call the Holy Land,” the Rev. Wagner boasted, in his own sugar-coated and truncated version of Islamic domination in Middle East history. “They also face the same brutal treatment at the hands of the Israeli occupiers, die from the same bullets, see their homes bulldozed and their lands confiscated and turned into illegal Jewish (only) settlements.” The Sabeel and typical Religious Left narrative is that only Israel can be faulted for any regional upheaval. “They live behind a 24-foot wall that chokes their towns and villages and cuts off farmers from tilling their lands, whether they are Christians or Muslims,” Wagner said of Palestinian Christians. “The Israeli occupation is an equal abuser of Palestinian Christians and Muslims.”

Wagner rehashed the narrative that Palestinian Christians are leaving the region exclusively because of Israel. This narrative almost never explains why the Palestinian Muslim population continues to grow, despite all the Israeli oppression. Wagner recalled that 13 percent of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip population was Christian prior to Israeli occupation in 1967 after its victorious war against attacking Arab armies. He notes today the Palestinian Christian population is perhaps not more than 1 percent. Of course, he omits the exodus of Christians from other Middle East countries, an exodus compounded by low birth rates.

“Some church leaders fear that at this rate there will be no Christians left in these parts of the Holy Land within a generation, unless something dramatic causes Israel to change its intransigence,” Wagner warns. But if Israel completely withdrew behind pre-1967 borders, would Palestinian Christians suddenly begin to thrive under full Palestinian nationalist or Islamist rule? Everywhere throughout the Middle East, Christian populations have been draining for the last century or more. That exodus is accelerating, as secular dictatorships that partly protected Christians are surrendering to Islamist movements.

Wagner excitedly pointed at the upcoming United Methodist and Presbyterian conventions, which he hopes will approve anti-Israel divestment, though both churches have rejected it in the past. He explains: “The churches are applying the same ethical principles for morally responsible investment as they have applied in previous cases such as Apartheid in South Africa, Sudan ethnic cleansing in Darfur, and divesting from corporations producing weapons or instruments that destroy lives or the livelihood of civilians.” How ironic that he morally compares Israel to Sudan’s notorious Islamist regime. “These sisters and brothers [among the Palestinians] are hoping and praying that the global church will not let them down in their hour of need and will begin to embody prophetic consciousness,” Wagner concluded.

Well, perhaps. Or just as likely, the remnant of Palestinian Christians is saying what they have to say in a struggle to survive as a tiny minority among Muslim nationalists and zealots. Compared to Wagner’s FOSNA and the angry March on Jerusalem, Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori almost sounds coolly reassuring when she told her Los Angeles audience: “I would urge you to pray for the peace of Jerusalem, to pray and work together for a society of peace with justice for that vision that is shared by all Abrahamic faiths. Salaam, shalom, peace.”

Mark D. Tooley

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/03/30/leftist-bishop-rejects-anti-israel-divestment/

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

Sharia is Islam

by Frontpagemag.com/

Belgium is on its way to becoming a totalitarian state:



Frontpagemag.com

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/03/30/sharia-is-islam/

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

Obama’s Presidency Is Now Changed

by Abe Greenwald

In the Washington Times, Charles Hurt claims this “has been, without any doubt, the worst week yet for President Obama.” He cites the fatal multi-car pile-up that is the Trayvon Martin controversy, the hot-mic incident with Dmitry Medvedev, Obamacare on the ropes at the Supreme Court, and the congressional defeat of Obama’s budget. It’s true this has been Obama’s worst week ever. But it’s also more than that. There are all sorts of ways to have a bad political week, and most don’t involve secretly colluding with the Kremlin and watching your signature policy initiative deliquesce at the Supreme Court.

For Obama detractors, this week was the mother of all “told-ya-so’s”: the disaster predictions of his presidency made manifest; all the contents of 2008’s dire prophecies conjured into the real world. The brazen courting of international bad actors, the constitutionally unfeasible leftism, and the political illiteracy have been summoned at last in the space of a few days. You no longer need conservative pundits to paint a worrisome picture when you can just go to the videotape.

Worst of all is the clear, bright line connecting the health-care showdown and the Putin pander: Barack Obama’s casual indifference to democratic principle. That the healthcare overhaul was a federally enforced protection racket is no more relevant to him than Vladimir Putin’s aggressive anti-freedom agenda. Expedience means the state compels the people to do what’s in their best interest. No one said change is easy.

The told-ya-so business is high risk. If in June it turns out that the Court didn’t shoot down all or part of Obamacare, the president will get a considerable lift. The larger context of this week from hell will be history and Obama critics will eat a plate of crow as large as the seeming political corpse on which they now feast. But that’s only politics. The essential nature of Obama’s presidency is fundamentally changed no matter what. Recovering support after the catastrophes of this week, which is certainly possible, would mean inaugurating a new kind of Obama advocacy. One no longer based on idealism or hope but rather on the kind of cynicism and opportunism that were brought to light over the last several days.

Abe Greenwald

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/03/30/obama-presidency-changed/#more-789293

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

Assad Says Revolt is Over But The Army Keeps Shooting

by Rick Moran

The opposition claims it won't stop fighting until tanks and artillery are withdrawn for the major cities. But President Assad continues his propaganda campaign claiming the revolt against him is over.

Who is he trying to kid?

Reuters:

Washington and Gulf Arab states urged peace envoy Kofi Annan to set a timeline for "next steps" if there is no ceasefire, and Saudi Arabia repeated a call for rebels to be armed.

Annan has said neither measure would be helpful. The former U.N. chief's mission has brought no respite in the killings.

Syria also said it would keep its forces in cities to "maintain security" until it is safe to withdraw in line with the peace deal, which Assad has said he accepts.

Annan's plan says the army must stop violence immediately and be the first to withdraw forces.

"We cannot accept the presence of tanks and troops in armored vehicles among the people," a spokesman for Free Syrian Army commanders inside Syria said.

"We don't have a problem with the ceasefire. As soon as they remove their armored vehicles, the Free Syrian Army will not fire a single shot," Lieutenant Colonel Qassim Saad al-Din told Reuters by telephone from Homs.

A rebel officer in Damascus said separately: "When Assad's gangs stop the shelling and killing of civilians, then our leaders can issue an order to stop operations and we will commit to it to show our good intentions."

Opposition activists reported 25 people killed and five bodies found bearing signs of torture, including two children.

A protest singer in Kafr Ruma was killed when his house was raided. A young man and his sister were shot dead when state forces stormed their village, and a man died of gunshot wounds inflicted during a protest in Damascus.

The Annan plan won't work because the minimum requirement of the opposition is that Assad step aside immediately. That's not going to happen so even if there is some kind of a "cease fire," the chances are good that it will break down within days, if not sooner, and the fighting will recommence.

Rick Moran

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/assad_says_revolt_is_over_but_the_army_keeps_shooting.html

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

Justice Sonia Sotomayor's Shocking Ignorance

by Jason Lee

The liberal Supreme Court justices have demonstrated profound and shocking ignorance of the American health care system. Here's one of the most jarring examples:

"What percentage of the American people who took their son or daughter to an emergency room and that child was turned away because the parent didn't have insurance," asked Sotomayor, "... do you think there's a large percentage of the American population that would stand for the death of that child -- (who) had an allergic reaction and a simple shot would have saved the child?"

I have a precise answer for Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

The percentage of American people who took their son or daughter to an emergency room and were turned away because the parent didn't have insurance is exactly zero.

No person, whether American or not, is ever turned away from an emergency room for lack of health insurance. Ever.

This simply does not happen.

Here's why:

1. It's illegal.

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.

You can thank Republican President Ronald Reagan for that, for better or for worse.

As a health care provider who interacts with emergency room physicians on a daily basis, I can attest to the fact that seriously ill patients are never discharged from an emergency room in the tragic fashion that Sonia Sotomayor imagines. Even uninsured patients with minor, self-limited problems are treated better than that.

2. Morality and the patient-doctor relationship

Although this might come as a shocking revelation to liberal Democrats, most physicians understand the difference between right and wrong. No physician would turn away a child simply because the parent didn't have insurance. This is primarily because physicians, even conservative ones, are as compassionate as liberal Supreme Court justices. (And in securing scarce and enormously expensive resources for their patients in an emergency, physicians have virtually unlimited latitude.)

3. The legal risks of selfish, short-sighted decisions are enormous.

A jury would have no mercy on a physician who withheld treatment inappropriately, causing a child to die. The financial and professional consequences would be devastating.

It's disheartening to note that Justice Sonia Sotomayor, as profoundly ignorant as she is, will be making a monumental decision about a 2,700 page health care law. Justice Sotomayor needs to have a talk with her brother.

Jason Lee, M.D. blogs at RightKlik.net

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/justice_sonia_sotomayors_shocking_ignorance.html

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

More Evidence of Egyptian Police Stripping Women?

by Raymond Ibrahim

We all remember the international uproar that erupted when, during a clash between police and protesters in Egypt, the former beat and partially stripped to her bra a female protester (subsequently known as the “Blue Bra Woman”).

An older video which purports to show an Egyptian officer ordering a woman to take off all her clothes, is even worse, sparking debate anew. For the stripping is not a product of haste, blind-rage, or chaos—as apologists for the Blue Bra Woman incident argue—but deliberate, methodical, and sadistic.

According to a new report appearing yesterday on El Bashayer, Mohsin Bahsani, president of an Egyptian organization called Legal Assistance for Human Rights, has brought this video to the spotlight, saying he is preparing to submit a formal complaint to the Attorney General, asking for legal action to be taken, including identifying the perpetrators.

The video was earlier aired on the popular Egyptian program “90 Minutes” (click here; clip appears from around minute 1:45 to minute 4). It appears to be taped inside an apartment, where a man, dressed like an officer, threatens and slaps a woman around, bullying her to take off all her clothes. He constantly commands her to “strip” and orders the others in the room to keep the door closed.

First he gives her a hard, swift slap across the face when she refuses to take off her top; then she takes it off but he orders her to take her bra off as well. After protesting, she complies, but then covers her face for shame, all while sopping; he yells at her not to cover her face and gives her another hard slap. Then he resumes ordering her to continue stripping, i.e., take her pants—and presumably underwear, based on precedent—off. The video then cuts off.

The focus of 90 Minutes was whether this video is authentic and whether it can be proven that the man is a police officer. One of the guests, a journalist, seemed sure, pointing out that the man was wearing a holster with a gun in it (in Egypt, only officers are permitted to carry firearms). Likewise, the woman initially objected to being forced to strip naked, arguing “Are you going to drag me outside naked?” implying that she was being arrested and taken into custody; and after she takes her bra off, as the man orders her to continue stripping and she refuses, he threatens by saying, “Okay, off we go to the ministry [of justice],” again, implying he is an officer making an arrest.

The one main oddity of the video is that, towards the end of the clip, someone in the apartment leaps in front of the camera making a goofy face. Though one might argue that this takes away from the seriousness, and thus authenticity, of the situation, in fact, the counter argument can be made—that the jumping fool actually further demonstrates the authenticity of the video: If those making the tape were intentionally trying to frame Egypt’s police force—which the host of 90 Minutes offered as a possibility—surely they would not compromise their efforts by such a silly stunt in front of the camera.

A more likely interpretation is that the man is, in fact, an officer, who is at the apartment of friends or family, where he is doing them a “favor”— abusing his authority, “flexing his muscle” as it were, against this woman whom his buddies, for whatever reason, have targeted as needing to be threatened, shaken down, and shamed—all while some in the apartment goof around, apparently because such spectacles are not out of the ordinary.

Incidentally, this video was taken when Hosni Mubarak was in power, before the Revolution—a reminder that, brutality is not a product of this or that regime, but of culture; a reminder that the beating and stripping of the Blue-Bra woman, which caused much international outrage, may well be the tip of the iceberg.

Raymond Ibrahim

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/03/30/more-evidence-of-egyptian-police-stripping-women/

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

Global March to Jerusalem? How About One to the Ruins of Homs Ayatollah Khameini?

by Farid Ghadry

It never ceases to amaze me how the will of so few who are wrong can harm the will of so many who are right. We have seen it throughout history and this Middle East basks in that glorious past we all want to forget.

Today marks the date for yet another one of those events that walks, sails, or flies towards Israel. This obsession with this little country bordering Syria is the reason why tyranny flourishes in our corner of the world or had flourished in Germany starting 1933.

According to “Stop The Bomb” NGO based in Austria, this latest circus has been organized by some of the most undesirables the world can imagine. The Mullahs of Iran, the Islamists of the region, and the extreme left looking more like Nazis than Nazis themselves.

Considering that Iran has snipers on rooftops killing innocent Syrians and Iran is helping Assad in the Genocide against our people, what right do the Mullahs have or any other group to march towards Jerusalem when Homs, or Idlib, or Hama are in dire need of saving?

Do the Israelis kill 100 people everyday? Assad does.

Do the Israelis direct their Merkavas 105mm canons against the Palestinian civilian population? Assad directs his T-72′s against women and children.

Do the Israelis use helicopters to spray Palestinians marching in funerals? Assad does.

Do the Israelis kill Palestinian doctors treating injuries? Assad does.

Do the Israelis torture children and send their mutilated bodies to their mothers? Assad does.

The worst part is how the world turns a blind eye to those stark differences of behavior by not comparing the situation in both neighboring countries. I guess because it would highlight Israeli democracy more than highlight Assad atrocities.

I would also imagine if Israel did not exist, the Mullahs would be attacking every church and every monastery in the region. The same way when Hitler had Arabs in mind after he exterminated the Jews, which is sad because the Jews, once again, pay the highest price to protect others.

Enough crudity in behavior, density in the brains, or philistinism in deeds. These dark ages of watching the regimes in Iran and in Syria survive because of lack of will and vision and countries like Israel pay a price for mere existence are not footnotes in the annals of history. They will be viewed as another form of Medievalism living off the largesse of men content to think unilaterally, even selfishly.

Farid Ghadry

Source: http://ghadry.com/2012/03/30/global-march-to-jerusalem-how-about-one-to-the-ruins-of-homs-ayatollah-khameini/

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

Assad Makes Tactical Move By Pledging Peace, Erdogan Says

by AK Group

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, expressing mistrust of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, claimed Assad has made a tactical move by pledging peace in order to manipulate the results of this weekend's key Syria gathering in his favor.

Damascus has accepted a cease-fire and six-point peace plan drafted by United Nations and Arab League special envoy Kofi Annan, his spokesman, Ahmed Favzi, said on Tuesday.

En route to Tehran after attending a nuclear security conference in Seoul, Erdoğan said Assad is attempting to influence public opinion before the second Friends of Syria meeting in İstanbul on April 1 and ruled out the possibility that the Syrian president is genuine in his promises to quell violence in the country.

"Even though we used to have a close relationship with Assad, he hasn't stuck to the promises [to make democratic reforms] he repeatedly made to us. Making promises is one of his frequently used tactics," Erdoğan said.

"Before the UN meetings, Arab League meetings and the first Friends of Syria meeting, he [Assad] made similar promises and wanted to have an influence on the decisions of those meetings. Now, he is trying to influence the results of the İstanbul [Friends of Syria] meeting in a tactical move. However, I don't believe him. If only he was sincere," Erdoğan maintained.

The Foreign Ministry also has expressed similar caution for Assad's compromise.

"We hope that Assad's decision [to accept Annan's plan] will not turn out to be an act to buy time [to conduct more violence]," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Selçuk Ünal.

Syrian National Council, or SNC, leader Burhan Ghalioun, speaking from İstanbul, said Assad's recent move is a strategy to divert attention from the ongoing violence in Syria and to cover up new assaults in the country.

Syrian opposition groups convened in İstanbul on Tuesday to seek a common front for their year-old uprising against Assad. Meanwhile, conflicts sprang up on Tuesday on Syria's Lebanese border, vindicating Turkey and the Syrian opposition's suspicions of Assad's motives.

While Assad visited the besieged Baba Amr neighborhood of Homs as a show of good intention to end violence, Syrian troops advanced into north Lebanon, destroying farm buildings and clashing with Syrian rebels, residents said.

Annan's six-point plan includes a number of appeals to the Syrian regime, such as ensuring an immediate UN-supervised truce between the regime and the opposition forces, intensifying the pace and scale of the release of arbitrarily detained persons and allowing the freedom of movement for journalists across the country.

Syria To Recall Its Turkish Envoy

Syrian-Turkish relations seem to have chilled further after Turkey withdrew its ambassador in Damascus. In a retaliatory move to the closure of Turkey's embassy in Damascus on Monday, the Syrian regime has recalled a significant number of its diplomatic staff in Turkey to Syria.

Mounzer Mounzer, Syria's ambassador to Turkey, is also expected to return to Syria soon. Syria will downgrade its diplomatic representation to the level of junior chargé d'affaires in reaction to Turkey's move to cut diplomatic relations, according to reports. Ömer Önhon, Turkey's ambassador to Syria, has already returned to Turkey after being recalled by the Turkish government.

http://www.todayszaman.com/news-275679--erdogan-assad-makes-tactical-move-by-pledging-peace.html

Arab League Shuns Turkey, Iran On Syria

The Arab League has shunned Turkey and Iran from a Thursday meeting regarding Syria in Baghdad, seemingly intending to distance itself from Ankara-led aggressive policies against Damascus that prioritize toppling President Bashar al-Assad from power.

Turkey was not invited to the Baghdad meeting even though Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu has worked closely with Arab League Secretary-General Nabil al-Arabi since the early days of the Arab Spring; Turkey has observer status at the body and Ankara has participated in almost every crucial summit held by the 22-country organization.

Though officials have said the meeting was closed to all non-Arab countries, including Turkey and Iran, a senior European Union official will take part in the summit, with the executive secretary-general of the European External Action Service, Pierre Vimont, scheduled to represent Brussels at the meeting.

There are three main reasons for Turkey's exclusion from the meeting. The first is the current chilly relationship between Ankara and Baghdad over the latter's accusations that the Turkish government is seeking to increase its influence in its southern neighbor. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki objected to Turkey's participation, the Hürriyet Daily News has learned.

Maliki and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan found themselves at odds earlier this year because Ankara believes al-Maliki is acting as an offshoot of the Iranian administration and provides a link between Tehran and Damascus.

As Iraq assumes the term presidency of the Arab League, the league's relations with Ankara are likely to become bumpier during this period. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari was explicit in expressing his government's concern over the growing influence of regional powers Turkey and Iran inside Iraq in an interview with the Wall Street Journal.

"This summit will enhance our position to stand on our feet vis-à-vis these regional powers," he said, accusing Turkey and Iran of "competing to fill the vacuum in Iraq in the absence of an Iraqi representative, strong, national unity government."

Arab League Went Too Fast On Syria

The second reason for Turkey's exclusion from the meeting seems to stem from the Arab League's intention to distance itself from the policies of Turkey and some Western powers, which are focused on toppling al-Assad.

Divided over Assad's future, the members of the Arab League will likely endorse Kofi Annan's mission, which has received a positive response from Damascus. The Annan Plan is perceived as much more realistic than other competing plans in many Arab countries, which are growing increasingly suspicious of the Friends of Syria initiative.

Some Arab countries believe the league moved too quickly in demanding that al-Assad leave office -- losing some political maneuvering room by doing so. They have also laid part of the blame on Arabi for remaining under the influence of Davutoğlu, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Related to these differing positions over Syria, the third reason for Turkey's exclusion reflects growing concerns about rising Turkish interference in the Arab world's internal affairs. A good majority of Arab politicians, scholars and journalists suspect that increasing Turkish influence carries with it the motive of glorifying the Ottoman past, something the Turkish diplomatic establishment strongly denies.

AK Group

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2980/assad-makes-tactical-move-by-pledging-peace

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

Salam Fayyad's Hypocrisy: Awarding Journalists and Arresting Them

by Mahmoud Dweik

In public, Fayyad is telling his people and the rest of the world how much he cries about freedom of expression. Behind the scenes, however, Fayyad's security officers are busy arresting and intimidating any Journalist who exposes corruption or voices criticism of the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah. How can Fayyad argue that he is serious about fighting corruption, and at the same time arrest a journalist for exposing a corruption scandal in a diplomatic mission?

The Palestinian Authority government of Salam Fayyad, announcing this week the launching of the 2012 Award for Press Freedom, invited Palestinian journalists to submit their candidacy for the prestigious award, the first if its kind in the Palestinian territories.

The award is intended to encourage freedom of media and speech in the Palestinian territories, where local journalists have long been facing a campaign of intimidation and harassment by the two Palestinian governments in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Ironically, the news about the launching of the new award coincided with the arrest of Youssef Shayeb, a Palestinian journalist from Ramallah, on charges of "slander and defamation."

Fayyad's security forces in the West Bank arrested Shayeb after he published a report in a Jordanian newspaper exposing corruption in the Palestinian diplomatic mission in France.He was first detained for 48 hours, after which a Palestinian court extended his detention for an additional two weeks.

The arrest of Shayeb exposes Fayyad's double standards when it comes to freedom of expression. In public, Fayyad is telling his people and the rest of the world how much he cares about freedom of expression. To back up his claim, he has gone as far as announcing an annual award for press freedoms that would be granted to a Palestinian journalist who is chosen by a special panel of experts.

Behind the scenes, however, Fayyad's security officers are busy arresting and intimidating any journalist who exposes corruption or voices criticism of the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah.

To avoid responsibility for any wrongdoing, Fayyad's aides claim that their boss has no real control over the Palestinian security forces and point at President Mahmoud Abbas as the man to blame for the clampdown on journalists.

If Fayyad has no control over the security forces, then why does his government continue to pay salaries to tens of thousands of Palestinian policemen and security personnel?

Moreover, what is preventing Fayyad from speaking out against the Palestinian security forces if he is not happy with some of the things they are doing?

How can Fayyad distance himself from the Palestinian security forces one day and take credit for restoring law and order in the West Bank another day?

And how can Fayyad argue that he is serious about fighting corruption in Palestinian Authority institutions and, at the same time, arrest a journalist for exposing a corruption scandal in a diplomatic mission?

Even if Fayyad does not have direct control over the various branches of the Palestinian security forces in the West Bank -- as he claims -- his job as prime minister does not absolve him of full responsibility for what happens in territories that are under his jurisdiction.

Fayyad is mistaken if he thinks that he can fool Palestinian journalists through double-talk. The arrest of the Palestinian journalist this week by his security forces has drawn strong condemnations from a large number of Palestinians.

A prime minister who orders his security officers to arrest a journalist because of an article is not a "reformist." Nor is he someone who deserves the respect of the international community for supposedly being "liberal" and "open-minded."

Many Palestinians were pinning high hopes on Fayyad mainly because he is not affiliated with Fatah or Hamas.

But there is a saying in the Arab world that if you live 40 days among any people, you become part of them. Fayyad has been living with Fatah and Hamas for too long; that is why he has begun acting and speaking like them.

Mahmoud Dweik is a journalist and analyst who lives in the West Bank.

Source: http://www.meforum.org/3200/massacres-motivations

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