May 29, 2008 12:11
Fighting For Arab Moderation
Marwan Muasher, a former Jordanian deputy prime minister and foreign minister, has just published The Arab Center: The Promise of Moderation (Yale University Press). It's one of the most important books on the Middle East, and is required reading for everyone interested in finding solutions to the many problems the region faces today.
Marwan Muasher, right, with King Abdullah II of Jordan / PHOTO COURTESY MARWAN MUASHER
Muasher, now a vice president of the World Bank, has many interesting things to say about his experiences, which included serving as Jordan's ambassador to the U.S. and to Israel. But for the moment I would focus on his important account of the domestic reform process in Jordan, which he rightly suggests provides lessons for reform throughout the Arab world.
Muasher's former boss, King Abdullah II, is a modernizer by nature. In 2005 he gave Muasher the unenviable task of heading a royal commission aimed at developing a National Agenda for fundamental change in the Kingdom. It speaks volumes about the character and capabilities of both the King and Muasher that Abdullah II would have handed Muasher, a Christian, who had served in the controversial post as envoy to the Jewish state, such a huge responsibility for the future of the predominantly Muslim country. Muasher's committee indeed produced a very progressive report, calling for a fairer election process, a free press, a complete end to discrimination against women and the protection of civil society organizations against state interference. It's the most comprehensive national reform document ever produced in the Arab world.
What is most important about The Arab Center is not so much Muasher's work to produce the reform agenda but his description of the formidable obstacles that have prevented its implementation to this day. Muasher writes at length about the opposition of the Old Guard--"government officials, ex-officials, and long-serving bureaucrats who understood too well that reform ultimately would entail a complete revision of Jordanian political culture, one that would become merit-based, rather than one that often gave privileges such as jobs and education to an elite few." The Old Guard was joined, he notes, "by a handful of businessmen who have accrued both wealth and power thanks to their close alliance with the state."
Muasher describes how the Old Guard sought to discredit the committee's work by attacking its members for pushing an American agenda on the Middle East. It stooped to using part of the Jordanian press to wage a vicious, personal campaign, virtually accusing some committee members of being traitors. The campaign, Muasher laments, was successful: "the public cast doubt on an effort meant to improve the quality of life across the board even before the ink on the National Agenda was dry."
Muasher points out other obstacles to domestic reform in the Arab world. He takes Arab governments, conservative and progressive alike, to task for ignoring or resisting the need for political reform. He says that this has increased corruption among ruling elites, suppressed the development of political parties and intimidated and depoliticized the ordinary Arab citizen.
Without absolving Arabs of responsibility, Muasher convincingly argues how the external environment has also worked against Arab domestic reform. The failure to resolve the 60-year-old Arab-Israeli conflict, which he lays at the door of Israel as well as the Arab states, "has undeniably been a major impediment to overall development, including political development," he says. Muasher says that besides diverting resources into military expenditures, political leaders have been able to use the conflict as an excuse to postpone internal reform. Oil wealth enabled Arab states to dilute the need and demand for reform, and the dependency on oil encouraged the West to prefer stability to the uncertainties of political reform.
Even after 9/11 when the U.S. did side with political reformers, Muasher says, American support proved to be counterproductive because of Washington's lack of credibility in the Middle East due to its contentious role in the peace process and the invasion of Iraq. Muasher describes his role in a successful effort to convince the Bush administration to abandon its initial Greater Middle East Iniiative proposal which "not only would have backfired but also would have hurt the cause of reformers in the region." Muasher notes how the eventual American plan emphasized that "change should not and cannot be imposed from outside" and highlighted the need for "resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an element of progress in the region."
What I regard as Muasher's most salient comment is how all the above factors essentially conspired to prevent the formation of real national, democratic, non-relgious--I would add liberal as another adjective-- political parties that could play a meaningful role in democratizing the Middle East. Despite his clear preference for non-religious parties, Muasher courageously takes issue with those lumping all Islamist groups together and using the threat of Islamist victories as an excuse for postponing democracy. Islamists come to power, he argues, not because of democracy but because Arab governments have failed their people. The failure to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, Muasher adds, has further enhanced the popular appeal of Islamist parties. "Those who are sincerely concerned about checking the influence of the Islamists would advocate widening the political sphere so that a credible alternative to both the Islamists and the ruling elite would emerge," he says.
Arab leaders, and America's next president, would do well to heed the experiences and advice of an Arab statesman.
--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo
May 28, 2008 7:34
Revenge of a Millionaire Sucker
Morris Talansky hounded by reporters. / AFP
One of the first words I learned coming to Israel was "Freier."It 's a Yiddish word meaning "Sucker". And I seemed to have the word "Freier" plastered in big letters across my forehead. I rented a garden apartment and then the landlord promptly rented out part of the garden to a café, and from there everything just got worse.
But at last, I think I've found a bigger freier. His name is Morris Talansky, and like me, he's a foreigner in Israel. A U.S. businessman, Talansky is much in the news these days, hounded by the press, and the police. On Tuesday he told a Jerusalem court that over the past 15 years, he gave $150,000 to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, much of it in cash stuffed into envelopes.
And Talansky, who apparently has money to burn, said he did it because he admired Olmert, thought he was a "Prince of the Likud" party, and he didn't expect anything in return. No pay-back.
Wait a minute. He shelled out all this money to Olmert and didn't expect anything in return? Either Morris is truly a magnanimous gent, or he's the Crown Prince of Freiers. Compared to Morris, I'm somewhere in the palace kitchen, mucking out pots.
What amazes me is that Morris kept shelling out thick wads of bills -- including a $15,000 loan for an Olmert family vacation (never re-paid, says Morris)."I told Olmert I'd like him to return the money as soon as possible," the businessman told Israeli prosecutors. "Famous last words." The only time that Morris seemed miffed while giving testimony was when he remarked on Olmert's expensive habits -Cuban cigars, silk ties, classy wristwatches. You got the feeling those were luxuries that Morris, a hard-working guy, wouldn't even allow himself.
Talansky's testimony may nail Olmert for good, even though the premier protests that he never took a bribe and that all the cash in these envelopes went towards campaign funds. Morris says that once Olmert became PM he didn't have much time for his American friend. After taking office, he only saw Morris once, at a reception. Is that any way to treat a long-time friend admirer and giver of cash? Guess he didn't need Morris or his hand-outs any more. Guilty or not, Olmert's may soon be history. Labor Party leader and Defense Minister Ehud Barak today called for his resignation, and others in the fragile governing coalition may soon follow. And Morris, the Crown Prince of Freiers may get the last laugh.
by Tim McGirk/ Jerusalem
May 21, 2008 6:05
Bringing Down the Barricades in Beirut
Almost as soon as Lebanese leaders announced an agreement that may end the country's 18-month political crisis (see my story "Lebanon Agreement Buoys Hizballah"), sanitation workers began taking down the protest campground that the Hizballah-led opposition had built beneath the Grand Serail, Lebanon's seat of government in downtown Beirut.
The protest campground was becoming an embarrassment for everyone -- a sign of the country's disfunction -- and everyone will be happy to see it go.
Hizballah supporters -- some of whom had been living there the whole time -- were heading home triumphant. "This is as a victory over the American administration," said one. "If anyone who tries to touch our weapons, we will cut off his hands."
Hizballah's Christian allies are seeing the victory as a legitimization of their decision to join the more powerful side, and keep Christians out of the feud between Shia Muslim Hizballah and the Sunni Muslim supporters of the government. "For thirty years, Christians have been marginalized in Lebanon," said one official in the Free Patriotic Movement, a Christian opposition group. "Now there can be more equilibrium."
Local shopkeepers were happiest of all. "I lost a year and a half of business" said one of the owners of a Puma sneaker store. "What can you do? This is Lebanon. The important thing is that we are open and hopefully the town can come back to life."
And indeed, there are also signs that Hizballah's victory in Lebanon is pushing all sides of the cold war for the Middle East towards pragmatism. Almost as soon as the Lebanese announced their agreement, Israel and Syria announced that they have been holding indirect peace negotiations with Turkey as an intermediary. A Syrian official told my fixer in Damascus that the Assad regime wants direct talks with Israel as soon as possible, and with American involvement.
Will this Summer of Love last? Perhaps. But Lebanon's sectarian system is built on balance among all the countries religious groups, where change is almost always violent. Hizballah will soon have a disproportionate amount of power -- a veto in the cabinet, a favorable electoral law that could give the opposition a majority in the next presidential election, and in case it ever feels threatened, the country's only effective military force. Hizballah needs to be magnanimous in victory, or sooner or later, the scales will tip back.
--Andrew Lee Butters/Beirut
May 20, 2008 7:52
No 'Sex' in Jerusalem
Credit: Michael Gottschalk/afp/Getty Images
In chaste Jerusalem, the word ‘sex’ is taboo, at least on billboards. Maximedia, an Israeli billboard company, doesn’t want to risk the wrath of the city’s puritanical ultra-orthodox community, so it has asked that the title of the film “Sex And The City”, based on the TV hit series be changed to: “… And The City”.
Given a choice between ‘… And The City’, which sounds like part of a page torn from a telephone directory, and the new Indiana Jones thriller, I know for which one I’d shell out my shekels.
Distributors Forum Films are exasperated. As Arye Barak told Ynet, the internet news service, “The word ‘sex’ is part of the movie’s title. What exactly are we supposed to do?”
The billboard company claims that the city’s haredim would be so incensed that they’d tear down the poster or deface it. The billboards are also being banned in another town, Petah Tiq’vah. It isn’t the first time that, bowing to pressure from the ultra-religious community –now 20% of Jerusalem’s population and growing-- promoters have toned down their Jerusalem ads. When Black Eyed Peas played in Suleiman’s Pools last year, the girl in the group, sex-goddess Fergie, was censored off posters that appeared on the city’s buses.
In the mall outside the Time Bureau, a sex shop appeared one day nestled alongside the hair salons and tailors. It’s been there for over six months now, a lurid pink display window with mannequins in frilly, silly lingerie, and I’ve never once seen any one enter or exit the shop. Once I saw a little girl, mesmerized by the pink beaded curtains of the shop, who playfully wandered in. Howling in anguish, her haredi mother, dashed into the sex shop and pulled her out. Whew. Close call.
By Tim McGirk/Jerusalem
May 18, 2008 10:25
Nobel Winner's Harsh Truths in Israel
At age 83, Nadine Gordimer, the South African novelist and Nobel Laureate, may resemble a frail little sparrow, but she always flies straight for the storm. In her native land, she challenged apartheid, both in her novels of “inward testimony”, as she describes them, and through her political action.
When Gordimer was invited to attend the International Writers’ Festival in Jerusalem this month, many liberals wanted her to boycott the event in solidarity with Palestinians. She refused. Gordimer, who is Jewish, has been the victim of repeated censorship in her own land, and she isn’t about to let anyone or any regime tell her where she shouldn’t go, or what she should or shouldn’t say. Her voice may be soft but it carries a crisp righteousness. To be a practitioner of what she calls “Witness Literature”, she says, you need “imaginative tenacity”. She added: “The extremity of human experience doesn’t make a writer, the predilection has to be there, just like aggression in a boxer.”
And her predilection is to speak her mind, even if it reddens the face of her Israel hosts. After her lecture, I caught up with her and asked a few questions.
Q: Ever since ex-President Jimmy Carter compared South Africa to Israel, ‘apartheid” is a dirty word around here. Do you think it honestly applies to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians?
A: It’s not apartheid because both people have historical claims to the land. I’d have to be an archeologist to know whether there are ancient remains that prove the Jews and the Palestinians –whatever they were called then –were both here at the same time.
Q; So it’s not apartheid?
A: There’s only one valid Comparison between South African situation and this one, and that is the terrible behavior of the Israeli army and police in occupied territories. Gaza is apparently in a state of ruin, and I have been to the West Bank and have seen some of the consequences. For instance, the (Israeli built security) wall going right through the front door and the living room of people’s houses, cutting them off from their neighbors’ or from part of their own land. I’m comparing the brutality. It’s the same as it was in apartheid. It shocks and saddens me very much.
Q: Is there any positive lesson that Israelis and Palestinians can learn from the South African experience?
A: Indeed, we avoided a terrible civil war because the leaders swallowed all of their hatred and resentment and sat down, as we are sitting at this table, and talked. In my humble opinion, somehow this has got to take place here. You have to come to a just division here of frontiers and that begins with Israel going back to 1967 and giving back the occupied territories. That’s the start of it. And on the other side, it begins with Hamas and Islamic Jihad no longer saying that Israel has no right whatever to exist. If they recognize each other’s existence on whatever harsh terms exist, there could be peace.
by Tim McGirk/Jerusalem
May 17, 2008 12:27
The New Middle East
Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon dominate the bad news headlines from our region, but a new Middle East is quietly taking shape in the Gulf, in places like Qatar, Dubai and Abu Dhabi. That's the theme of a special report in the magazine this week.
In reporting for the project over the last six months, I spent some time with two extraordinary women whose work and views exemplify important, positive changes that are taking place. One of them is Sheika Mozah bint Nasser al-Missned, wife of the Emir of Qatar, and chairperson of the private Qatar Foundation for Education, Science and Community Development. The other is Yasemin Saib, a 34-year-old Saudi woman, who runs her own film production company in Dubai.
Please read the articles but I'll attach here some pictures and quotes to give you an idea of what we're talking about.
Sheika Mozah, with her husband, Qatar's Emir / TOM STODDART / REPORTAGE/GETTY
"The gender gap is not due to Islam. In the golden age of Islam, women were participating in every aspect of their societies. Look at the men. They are also oppressed. This is the problem: politics, the political agendas that some people are using to suppress their citizens, and traditions that existed even before Islam. Those traditions can play to the interests of some politicians." --Sheika Mozah
Yasemin Saib, on her Harley in Dubai / BALAZS GARDI / VII
"I love fasting during Ramadan, I love praying in the mosque, I love being part of a Muslim community. In Dubai, I can be an Arab and a Muslim. And I can also have all the Western amenities, all the freedoms I need to be an independent, self-sufficient woman." --Yasemin Saib
--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo
May 16, 2008 4:21
Obama: Appeasement, or Engagement?
As I see it from my perch here in the Middle East, American voters certainly have a choice now: the flap over President Bush's apparent "appeasement" attack on Barack Obama crystalizes the different foreign policy approaches that would be taken by a President Obama compared to a President McCain. The choice that McCain and Obama offer is more American unilateralism versus renewed American engagement.
McCain sees the Middle East in the same black and white, with-us-or-against-us framework as Bush does. The Middle East is a contest that American must "win." America and its ally Israel selflessly stand for freedom, democracy and peace. The enemies of the U.S. and Israel must be vanquished. They are evil promoters of hatred and practitioners of murder. McCain's emphasis is on America's military power. Obama sees the Middle East in more complex terms. He has stated his intention to engage in "aggressive personal diplomacy" with Iran's leaders to seek Iran's cooperation on issues including Iraq, terrorism and Iran's nuclear ambitions. He's also said he would negotiate with Syrian leaders. His combined willingness to negotiate with two countries that support Hamas and Hizballah indicates that Obama is ready to initiate a comprehensive diplomatic engagement rather than rely largely on American military force to resolve the conflicts in the Middle East. That's the reason that Bush seemed to be attacking Obama during his speech to the Israeli Knesset on Thursday. He ridiculed those who would "negotiate with terrorists and radicals" as promoters of "the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
The stark differences in approach should be given a full airing during the presidential campaign if Obama becomes the Democratic nominee. Obama will be put in an extraordinarily uncomfortable position, being made to appear that he is weak, naive, somehow sympathetic to anti-American groups and supporters of terrorism, or all of the above. To his credit, he seems to be sticking to his diplomacy-first beliefs, telling the New York Times this week: "I constantly reject this notion that any hint of strategies involving diplomacy are somehow soft or indicate surrender or means that you are not going to crack down on terrorism."
It is far from clear that Obama's diplomatic approach to the Middle East will work. But there's an unreal quality about what Bush and McCain said this week that they must be called on.
Is it Obama who is weak, naive and giving succor to America's enemies, or is it Bush and by extension McCain? By unilaterally invading Iraq and bungling the occupation, Bush severely undermined America's global standing, our credibility even with close allies and the U.S. economy. Iran has benefitted enormously from Bush's foul-ups, and al-Qaeda has not been cowed much less defeated by U.S. military firepower. For his part, McCain has suggested the U.S. military--this is a former POW in Vietnam speaking--might have to stay in Iraq for 100 years. In a speech in Columbus, Ohio this week, McCain predicted that America could declare itself the winner of the Iraq war during his first presidential term, and that Osama bin Laden would be killed or captured as well.
Actually, as it happens, there is a glaring inconsistency in Bush's rhetoric about negotiating with terrorists. Leaving aside his negotiations with "evil" North Korea, Bush's only tangible accomplishment in the Middle East is the U.S. breakthrough with Libya. Bush's people secretly negotiated with Colonel Gadhafy--a long-standing state-sponsor of terrorism--and convinced him to abandon Libya's nuclear weapons program. This is a matter of public record--I've heard the full story myself in detail from the mouth of Gadhafy's son, Seif al-Islam. An American embassy is open again in Tripoli. Gadhafy is busy building luxury vacation resorts rather than nuclear bombs. If that's appeasement, maybe we need more of it.
Another case is the one that concerns the Palestinian group Fatah and its late leader, Yasser Arafat. When Bush took office in 2001, he chose to abandon Clinton's policy of mediating the Israeli-Palestinian dispute or dealing with Arafat. The next six years saw some of the worst violence in the history of the conflict and the rise of the Islamist group Hamas. After all that damage was done, Bush decided to engage Fatah once again--launching the intensive last-ditch Annapolis peace process. After all the tragic dead-ends, it seems Bush decided that negotiations were worth pursing after all. For his part, McCain is eager to show his disdain for including Hamas in talks. He ridicules Obama for having been "endorsed" by Hamas--an unworthy cheap shot distorting sympathetic comments expressed by a Hamas official. Yet the idea is a far cry from appeasement. In a Haaretz poll in February, 64% of Israelis themselves said they favored talking to Hamas.
Then there's the case of Iran. Bush calls Iran's leaders part of the "axis of evil" and with McCain's chiming in with support suggests that Obama is another Neville Chamberlain for indicating that he would talk with them. Maybe Bush forgot that he has sent State Department envoys to negotiate with Iranian counterparts on several occasions, related to the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. In addition, Condi Rice has officially offered Iran high-level negotiations with the U.S. on one condition: it halts its uranium-enrichment program. The main difference between what Obama says and what Rice has actually proposed is that Obama does not place a pre-condition on negotiations. Yet, McCain this weak again wondered why Obama would want to talk with Iran's leaders. "Senator Obama ought to explain to the American people," he said.
Strip away the rhetoric--with its jingoism, silliness and contradictions--and simply ask, Which approach works, unilateralism or engagement? Did America "win" the Iraq war? Did the invasion advance American influence and interests? Did the war in Afghanistan destroy al-Qaeda and its extremist ideology and make the U.S. more secure? Did abandoning the Middle East peace process for six years help end the Israeli-Palestinian dispute or increase America's standing in the region or the world? Did designating Iran's leaders as "evil" rather than negotiating with them make it more or less likely that Iran will acquire a nuclear weapon. In Columbus, McCain said he will look back after his first presidential term and be satisfied that "the Iraq war has been won," and that U.S. counterinsurgency efforts "led to the capture or death of Osama bin Laden." As if just saying that will make it so. How marvelous if solving the Middle East's problems was only that simple.
--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo
May 15, 2008 9:43
What's Going to Happen to Lebanon? One Scenario
The Hizballah-led opposition removed its rubble barricades this evening / Photo by ALB
Last night the Lebanese government rescinded the two decisions that sparked last week's violent outburst from Hizallah -- to shut down Hizballah's private military telecommunications network and the firing of the pro-opposition airport chief who had probably been facilitating Hizballah wepaons shipments. In return, the Hizballah-led Shia Muslim opposition groups released their stranglehold on the city, bringing down its road blocks and allowing the airport to re-open. Everyone's back at work, flights are resuming, and no doubt tonight the bars will be packed.
Lebanon could go on humming like this for weeks, even months. Lebanon could have its first normal summer tourist season in years. But unless there is some kind of broad regional settlement that includes talks between American and Iran, and peace between Israel and the Arabs, the calm won't last. Hizballah's lightening quick armed incursion into Beirut was an illuminating moment, and a vision of worse to come.
For one thing, it showed that the Iranian-backed group -- despite years of saying that it would only use its weapons against Israel -- will do anything in its power to protect its military infrastructure, including using it on fellow Lebanese.
It showed that the American-backed ruling coalition is a government in name only. The army won't protect it (or risk splitting apart) the police can't (or they would be destroyed) and the street gangs in Sunni neighborhoods proved no match for Hizballah's ruthless efficiency and superior firepower. If Hizballah wanted to, it could drag Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's cabinet out of the Grand Serail by force.
But the fact that Hizballah didn't do so, and that it only attacked street gangs and political offices (not state institutions) was also illuminating. For all its military supremacy, Hizballah needs a political settlement in order to legitimize its role as a state-within-a-state. Hizballah can't run Lebanon on its own. With 17 different religious groups and a constitution that divides power among them, this place is a mess. Fighting Israel is a whole lot easier than governing Lebanon.
The ruling coalition knows this and is refusing to accept Hizballah's political terms: a new government in which Hizballah would have an expanded role and veto power over major decisions. The Siniora cabinet's only option is to delay, and cling to the symbols of international legitimacy even though it has little street credibility.
This is a dangerous game. With a vacuum at the top, the streets are reasserting themselves. Already the country is dividing up neighborhood by neighborhood, town by town, and gangs are forming to protect their turf and screen outsiders. Unable to contest Hizballah directly, Sunni gangs could start taking revenge on Shia civilians, and begin the cycle of violence and revenge. Already Al Qaeda types are clamoring to come here and kill Shia -- doing to Lebanon what they did to Iraq. And if the government refuses to cooperate, Hizballah may send its troops out again.
At this point the real darkness could begin. Lebanon itself could break up with a rump Hizballahstan taking over in southern Lebanon, southern Beirut, and the Bekaa valley, with an independent Christian Mount Lebanon in the north, and the Sunni city of Tripoli becoming the capital of Al Qaeda. After which, it would be only a matter of time before Lebanon's rival Christian parties start fighting amongst themselves.
This could be just what Israeli and American Likudniks and neo-conservatives want: the Lebanese fighting amongst themselves, and Muslims killing Muslims instead of Jews. But it would be a nightmare for everyone else, worse than any foreign occupation, or despotic government. It would be Fitna -- upheaval, strife, civil war.
Scene of a sectarian street massacre in Beirut last week/Photo by Pasqual Gorriz
--Andrew Lee Butters/Beirut
May 15, 2008 1:16
Citizen Power and the Middle East
Check out two new books on or related to the Middle East, Tragedy in South Lebanon: The Israeli-Hezbollah War of 2006, by Cathy Sultan (Scarletta Press), and Re-engage! America and the World after Bush, by Helena Cobban (Paradigm Publishers). I'm prompted to write about them after a friend emailing from San Francisco recently asked whether I was optimistic about the Middle East, and whether the "peace movement" was effective or an exercise in futility. Well, I'm guardedly optimistic, despite scenes like those we saw in Beirut again over the past week. But I do think citizens have an important role to play if peace is to become a reality.
In Tragedy, as in her earlier books, A Beirut Heart and Israeli and Palestinian Voices, author and peace activist Sultan expresses an honest citizen's outrage over the region's continuing conflicts and describes the human toll on all sides through the fascinating testimonies of people on the ground. Tragedy also has its merits as a good citizens' handbook to the problems in Lebanon and the Middle East. But what I like most about the book is how she tells the story through her eyes as a concerned citizen seeking a better world whose own eyes were opened wider by the personal experience of living through the 1975-90 Lebanese Civil War. American-born Sultan, now residing with her Lebanese husband in Wisconsin, helps open other eyes through her books as well as through her work in such organizations as the National Peace Foundation, which is involved in sending delegations to Israel and Palestine.
Journalist Helena Cobban's Re-engage! is a citizens' manual with a broader agenda. Cobban feels that Bush's invasion of Iraq has led to a strategic failure of a similar magnitude as the 1956 Suez crisis, which effectively diminished the global role played by once-great imperial powers Britain and France, and as the 1979 Afghanistan invasion, which helped lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Believing that the next American president has a new chance to put things right, Cobban calls for a revamped foreign policy of global inclusion to replace Bush's unilateralism. Cobban is formerly a foreign correspondent for major media outlets like the London Sunday Times. Her search for a better world likewise has the citizen's touch to it now; besides her mainstream writings and books, she draws inspiration--and had help with this book--from her Quaker congregation in Virgina. Since 2003 she has operated Just World News, a lively, informative blog on world affairs that is popular with specialists and non-specialist citizens alike. Just World News, like Re-engage!, is a good example of the role citizens can play in helping shape a new, better narrative for the Middle East and the world.
Back to my friend's question that prompted this blog post:
I'm not too worried about radical Islam, the "clash of civilizations" or Iran's nuclear ambitions. The main obstacle to a better future is the power politics over security, and I think very broadly speaking that the region's players and interested outside parties like the U.S. have gradually moved toward a more realistic understanding of how to live together. There's a long, long way to go, of course, but here's one important example of the way mindsets have evolved in the right direction. Twenty years ago this week when Israel was marking 40 years of independence, the PLO and its leader Arafat were branded as terrorists by the Israeli and U.S. governments. A few years later, the U.S., Israel and the PLO found a way of dealing with one another. Arafat and Rabin signed the Oslo peace agreement at the White House with Clinton. That was based on the realistic view that Israel was not going to disappear, yet the Palestinians' legitimate rights needed to be addressed. Today, as Israel marks 60 years of independence, the U.S. and Israel are desperate to keep Arafat's successor, Mahmoud Abbas, as a negotiating partner. All three parties are looking over their shoulders at Hamas. Yet, even Hamas, for all its radicalism, shows a willingness to compromise reminiscent of the old PLO. Who would have imagined that a former American president, the mediator of the Camp David peace accords, would be holding talks with Hamas leaders in the Syrian capital, as Jimmy Carter did last month? The U.S. brands Hamas a terror group and Syria a state sponsor of terrorism.
More important, mindsets among ordinary people have changed, too. In a Haaretz poll in February, 64% of Israelis said they favored talking to Hamas. That's quite remarkable, given the unforgivable suicide bombings the group has inflicted on Israeli civilians. But it also reflects the growing realism and impatience for peace at the grassroots level that you can see throughout the Middle East.
Ultimately, political leaders must take the necessary steps to make peace. You would be starry-eyed to believe that citizen groups have the capacity to foment some kind of popular hands-across-the-wall revolution throughout the Middle East. But I do think that the role of NGOs including peace groups--and including the work of folks like Cathy Sultan and Helena Cobban-- is vital for expanding the space for tolerance and understanding and challenging the conventional wisdom (as well as real fears) driving the conflicts onward.
--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo
May 13, 2008 10:37
Yes, I'm Still in Beirut
Sorry I haven't been blogging folks, but I've been overwhelmed with the upheaval in Beirut. Hopefully you've been catching my stories about the Hizballah siege of Beirut on time.com
If not here are two of them:
After the Blitz, Hizballah Runs Beirut
And tomorrow I'll return to regular programming, I promise.
--ALB
May 13, 2008 8:14
A Reporter's Take on Iran in Iraq
For an alternative look at Iran in Iraq, read Nir Rosen's provocative piece on Steve Clemons' Washington Note. Rosen challenges the conventional wisdom of Beltway policymakers and media narrative-setters. He pulls no punches in taking on everybody from the U.S. military's Gen. Petraeus to the Washington Post's editorial board. Nir, a former colleague of ours in TIME's Baghdad Bureau, has written extensively for the New Yorker, the New York Times and others. He's a reporter who has covered America's military involvements after 9/11 more closely on the ground as anybody has. His reporting on that is contained in his book, just re-issued in paperback, The Triumph of the Martyrs in Iraq.
A few excerpts from his take on Iran in Iraq, "Selling the War With Iran":
I have remained shocked, like many journalists and academics familiar with the region and its languages, that the Americans have shown no improvement in their understanding of the Muslim world with which they are so deeply engaged militarily and as an imperial power... too often the so called experts are equally ignorant. Remarkably, their lack of background, expertise or language skills and their repeated errors have not diminished the credibility of people such as Fred Kagan of the far right American Enterprise Institute (a Russia expert!), or Kenneth Pollock of the Brookings Institute or their cohorts...
Moreover the dominant parties in the government and in those units of the security forces that battled their political rivals in Basra and elsewhere are the ones closest to Iran. The leadership of the Iraqi government regularly consults Iranian officials and is closer to Iran than any other element in Iraq today. Moreover, the Americans have always blamed their failures in Iraq on outsiders, Baathists, al Qaeda, Iranians, because they refuse to admit that the Iraqi people don't want them. So Iran is a convenient scapegoat to explain the strength of the Sadrists, a strength actually resulting from the fact that they are a genuinely popular mass movement. Blaming Iran also lets the Americans maintain the illusion that the Mahdi Army's ceasefire is still in effect. I expect this from the Bush administration and the ideologues who back it. But when the American media, which, in the build up to the American attack on Iraq abdicated its duty to challenge those in power and inform the public, continues to demonstrate the same lack of skepticism, it is very distressing...
The truth is, most allegations about Iran's role in Iraq and the region are unfounded or dishonest. Iran was responsible for ending the recent fighting in Basra and calming the situation after Iraqi parliamentarians who backed Prime Minister Maliki approached it. The Iranians, never close to Muqtada or his family, were so annoyed with Muqtada and his presence that they reportedly ordered him out of Iran where he had been living in virtual house arrest anyway since arriving six months earlier. Iranian officials and the state media clearly supported Prime Minister Maliki and the Iraqi government against what they described as "illegal armed groups" in the recent conflict in Basra, which is not surprising given that their main proxy in Iraq, the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council dominates the Iraqi state and is Maliki's main backer. The Supreme Council is of course also the main proxy for the US in Iraq and somehow in the Senate testimony it was forgotten that its large Badr militia was established in Iran and is actually the only Iraqi opposition group to have fought on the Iranian side against Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Moreover, the Badr militia was a branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard that is so demonized today, and Badr dominates the ministry of interior, if not most of Iraq at the higher echelons. But none of this openly available information made its way to the Post's editorial writers or the dominant discourse in the US...
There is no proxy war in Iraq, because the US and Iran share the same proxy and the US installed that proxy and empowered it. Today, to the extent that we can talk about an Iraqi "state," it is dominated by the Supreme Council and its Badr militia. The Sadrist movement of which the Mahdi Army is a loose militia is also the largest humanitarian organization in Iraq, providing homes, security, rations, clothes and other services to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. It is a complex movement and certainly is as guilty of crimes as all the other groups that took part in the Iraqi civil war, including the Americans...
Most of those who fight the Americans in Iraq do so not at the bidding of a foreign power but out of genuine and sincere opposition to the American occupation. The Americans never grasped this and always assumed it was about the money, or al Qaeda, and now part of a silly Iranian conspiracy. After at first siding with Iraq's Shiites much to the consternation of America's so called "moderate" Sunni allies, the Americans are now targeting Shiites and perhaps even Shiite Iran as Bush prepares for once last war on his path to the "New Middle East." But without the help of an acquiescent media supplicating to Bush administration and US military officials they might not be able to go to war once again...
I believe that in fact Iran is a positive influence in Iraq, that it has a close relationship with the Kurds and the Shiites and that the Iranian regime, unlike its Sunni neighbors, is not sectarian and is very pragmatic. If Iraq's Sunnis dislike Iran it is because Saddam Hussein initiated a war of aggression against Iran and succeeded in demonizing Shiites. Admiral Mullen was wrong when he said that Iran prefers "see a weak Iraq neighbor." Iran and the former Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al Jaafari even discussed Iran training Iraq's security forces. Iran has close relations with Sunni Islamist Hamas and its foreign policy is not a Shiite one at all. Iran does not seek to conquer or control its Arab neighbors but it also chooses not to be an American puppet or client regime, and that has always been the sin the American empire will never pardon...
--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo
May 13, 2008 7:24
Bush at Israel's Birthday Party
A special treat awaits Bush in Israel. For the first time in 40 years, a fragment of the Dead Sea scroll will be on display for the president. Bush may pride himself on being low-brow, but as a reborn Christian, he can’t help but be impressed by the 2,000 year old manuscript bearing the words of the Prophet Isaiah: “They shall beat their swords into plowshares.”
How’s that for irony? The last thing that Israelis want from the U.S.A. are plowshares. (They’re probably all made in China, anyway.) Israelis want weapons. The faster, bigger, more lethal weapons the better. And they want Bush to do something about Iran. Pronto. That doesn’t mean dropping pieces of agricultural machinery on Iran from B-52s. The Israelis want the Americans to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities to smithereens because they believe that President Ahmedinejad is certifiably loony and is likely to use whatever nasty toy he’s building against Israel.
Bush and his entourage arrive Tuesday night. But this won’t be a trip where much gets accomplished on the Israeli-Palestinian peace initiative. It’s Israel’s 60th anniversary, and Bush is here to party.
Besides, there won’t be any Palestinians around at these festivities. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is staying away. Israel’s independence is hardly a celebratory matter for Palestinians who refer to the event as the Naqba, the disaster or catastrophe. And, even of there were one or two Bush fans among the Palestinians who might want to cross into Israel and wave a little flag as the Great Man’s motorcade whizzes by, they can’t. All entry points from the Palestinian territories into Israel are closed off. That means all the Palestinian laborers, teachers, and students, along with Time’s own correspondent Jamil Hamad are all stuck on the other side of the security fence. The Israelis are fearful that Palestinian militants may want to wreck the birthday party. Even with the lock-down, the Israelis still aren’t taking any chances. Over 14,000 police are on duty in Jerusalem during the president’s visit, and everyone, Israelis and Palestinians alike, will breathe a collective sign of relief when the bash ends and Bush leaves. Me too.
---by Tim McGirk/Jerusalem
May 11, 2008 10:56
James Rubin: "Obliterate" in Context
James Rubin, State Department spokesman in Bill Clinton's second term, emails to argue that some of the reporting on Hillary Clinton's remark about obliterating Iran has been out of context and has contributed to an ill-informed discussion. Here's what Rubin has to say:
For those who have focused on the "obliterate" controversy, two points seem relevant. First, Senator Clinton was responding to a hypothetical question about what the United States should do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, which would mean the probable destruction of Israel.
Second, for those of you who may remember the Cold War, we talked a lot in those days about mutual assured destruction which is pretty much the same as mutual obliteration. Those kinds of things were commonly said as part of deterrence.
More important, if you read the entire quote you will see that she is saying we are able to obliterate, which is a statement about capabilities analagous to many things said during the Cold War. When describing this, she went on to point out that such a thing is terrible to think about, a comment that I don't remember made all that often by the eight American presidents who regularly discussed America's capability to completely destroy the Soviet Union.
Both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton chose to respond to a hypothetical question about an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel. In doing so, there was inevitably going to be misinterpretation. The Iranian government has chosen to misinterpret the remarks in order to play the victim. I don't think they should be encouraged in their diplomatic games.
Rubin calls attention what Clinton's said in the Democratic candidates' debate in Philadelphia on April 16. A reporter set the stage by asking the candidates whether the U.S. should consider an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the U.S. Here's how Clinton responded:
I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course, I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States.
But I would do the same with other countries in the region. We are at a very dangerous point with Iran. The Bush policy has failed. Iran has not been deterred. They continue to try to not only obtain the fissile material for nuclear weapons, but they are intent upon using their efforts to intimidate the region and to have their way when it comes to the support of terrorism in Lebanon and elsewhere.
And I think that this is an opportunity, with skillful diplomacy, for the United States, to go to the region and enlist the region in a security agreement vis-a-vis Iran.
It would give us three tools we now don't have. Number one, we've got to begin diplomatic engagement with Iran. And we want the region and the world to understand how serious we are about it. I would begin those discussions at a low level. I certainly would not meet with Ahmadinejad because even again today he made light of 9/11, and said that he's not even sure it happened and that people actually died.
He's not someone who would have an opportunity to meet with me in the White House. But I would have a diplomatic process that would engage him. And secondly, we've got to deter other countries from feeling they have to acquire nuclear weapons. You can't go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say, well, don't acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you're also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup. And we will let the Iranians know, that, yes, an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation. But so would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under the security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions. And finally, we cannot permit Iran to become a nuclear weapons power. And this administration has failed in our efforts to convince the rest of the world that that is a danger, not only to us, and not just to Israel but to the region and beyond.
Therefore, we have not to have this process that reaches out beyond even who we would put under the security umbrella, to get the rest of the world on our side to try to impose the kind of sanctions and diplomatic efforts that might prevent this from occurring.
--By Scott MacLeod/Dubai
May 8, 2008 11:03
Is This the Start of the Next Lebanese Civil War?
A Shia militant dressed as a police officer fires into a Sunni neighborhood/Photo by Pasqual Gorriz
The barricades have spread. The airport is blocked. Rolling gunfights and sporadic rocket fire have sent the residents of Beirut to the cash machines and grocery stores to prepare for the worst. But the most telling sign that the second day of violent clashes between supporters of Lebanon's American-backed government and the Iranian and Syrian-backed opposition is moving towards civil war came from a speech from Hizballah chief Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the opposition. Nasrallah said that a recent government decision to shut down Hizballah's private communications network amounted to an act of war.
Hizballah views its communications network as an important weapon in its military struggle against Israel. (See Nick Blanford's story from yesterday "Cell Phone Civil War"). Today, Nasrallah, who in the past has said that Hizballah's weapons are only for use against Israel, ominously declared that his forces would fight an internal battle against the government if it didn't reverse its decisions to shut the mobile phone network and to remove the head of the airport, whom the government suspects of pro-opposition sympathies. Nasrallah accused the government of trying to do Israel's dirty work by disarming Hizaballah, and of trying to turn the airport into a base for the Mossad and CIA.
Just why the government chose this particular moment to move against Hizballah's infrastructure remains unclear. Hizballah, which fought Israel to a stand-still in the summer war of 2006, is much stronger and better organized than government forces, and is certain to win any confrontation. Still, Hizballah would have much to lose in an open civil war. Not only would the chaos distract them from the far more dangerous struggle with Israel, but it could also help radical Al-Qaeda affiliated Sunni jihadi groups infiltrate Lebanon.
So far there is no word yet of casualties from the clashes, which are being fought mainly by rival street gangs in areas of west and central Beirut where Shia and Sunni neighborhoods meet. Because Lebanon's constitution divides power among the country's main religious groups, Lebanon's political stand-off has devolved into a sectarian one, with the main action pitting Muslims against Muslims, mirroring regional tension as a whole.
Which may limit the Lebanese governments ability to back down from a fight it cannot win. The officials who moved against the Hizballah network are known to coordinate their actions with the United States, and the Bush administration may be digging in its heels into Lebanon while its days in office are on the wane.
Photo by Pasqual Gorriz
--Andrew Lee Butters/Beirut
May 8, 2008 12:32
Gary Sick on Hillary: More of the Same on Iran?
Few Americans watch Iran more closely or with deeper understanding than Gary Sick, a Carter White House advisor who is a professor and executive director of Columbia University's Gulf/2000 Project. What Sick has to say on Hillary Clinton's "obliterate" comment, in a note circulated to Project members, provides insights into future U.S. policy on Iran. This is must reading, following up our recent posts and reader comments:
Hillary Clinton's warning that the United States could "obliterate" Iran if that country should "foolishly consider" launching an attack on Israel is, of course, pandering to a broad American constituency that wants to hear tough rhetoric about Iran. It is also intended to appeal to a constituency that needs constant reassurance that America's relationship with Israel is secure. And, by addressing a strategic hypothetical that would by any measure be many years in the future ("in the next ten years" in her words), it seems intended to convince doubters that a woman is tough enough - perhaps more than tough enough - to be commander in chief.
Although her use of the word "obliterate" was both excessive and ill-advised, it might be seen as a challenge to Obama to match her toughness, or even as simply pandering shamelessly to a constituency that thrives on political red meat. That is not very flattering to her, but it might be regarded as politics as usual. What makes this statement particularly troublesome is that it cannot be dismissed as mere off-the-cuff responses to a TV interviewer. Rather, it appears to be part of a broader, considered policy that would likely be at the heart of the Middle East strategy of President Hillary Clinton.
The Clinton campaign, while explaining her remarks to skeptics, made it clear that this was no slip of the tongue. Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post reports that the "obliterate" remarks are part of a more extensive plan, first advanced in the debate prior to the Pennsylvania primary, for a new defensive alliance with the Arab states and Israel, in which the United States would extend not only a "security umbrella" over Israel but also "provide a deterrent backup" that would extend U.S. nuclear guarantees to Arab states who renounce nuclear weapons. The apparent author of this strategy is Martin Indyk.
Martin Indyk came into Bill Clinton's administration as director for Middle East affairs on the National Security Council and later represented the United States as ambassador to Israel (twice) as well as a stint as Assistant Secretary for Near East Affairs at the Department of State. He was present at every stage of the Clinton administration's Middle East policy, but he is most frequently remembered, at least by Persian Gulf specialists, as the author of the so-called "dual containment" policy.
"Dual containment" basically postulates that the way to deal with recalcitrant states in the Persian Gulf (i.e. states that are unsympathetic to U.S. interests and objectives) is to isolate them and "contain" them, relying on sanctions and superior military power. It was also quite explicit in linking "containment of Iraq and Iran in the east" with "promotion of Arab-Israeli peace in the west." This was a new twist in U.S. policy which had previously maintained that the Persian Gulf/oil could be separated from the Arab-Israeli dispute. The policy was therefore viewed by many as attempting to wall off the troublesome Persian Gulf region so that the United States could focus on the Arab-Israel issue, or, as it later evolved, on Israel alone. It was also a unilateral policy: collaborators would be nice, but in their absence the United States could and would act alone.
Although the name "dual containment" is no longer used, especially after the invasion of Iraq removed one of the policy's targets, it is nevertheless true that the dominant premise of the policy - that you deal with your enemies and rivals unilaterally by isolation and threats rather than engagement - is one Clintonian policy that has been adopted unabashedly by the Bush administration. It has defined U.S. policy in the region for the past decade and a half.
Dual containment was first announced by Indyk in May 1993, in the early months of the Bill Clinton administration. The previous administration of George Bush pere had held out the promise that "Good will begets good will," to entice Iran to intervene on behalf of the American hostages in Lebanon; Iran did so, but by the time the hostages were successfully released, Bush was deep into a presidential campaign and could not fulfill his commitment. Then, of course, he lost the election and the Iranians were told that they would have to forget about any U.S. promises.
Still, Iran had taken a serious decision to try to open channels to the United States, and when Bill Clinton was elected, they put out new feelers (in which I had a small role). These were ignored in favor of dual containment. Iran tried again with unilateral economic offers in 1995, but the Clinton administration responded by enacting far-reaching economic sanctions against Iran.
Dual containment and its accompanying sanctions were adopted with the stated objective of changing Iran's behavior on a number of issues: nuclear, Arab-Israel peace process, and terrorism, among others. After a full quarter of a century, with the United States doing everything in its power to coerce and threaten Iran economically and militarily, Iran's policies have changed to some degree, but it would take a real ideologue to claim that they have evolved on anything other than an Iranian schedule according to Iranian political objectives. In short, U.S. policies have failed utterly in their key objectives. Yet our answer - and the answer of the Clinton campaign from what we can tell - is more of the same. Clinton-Indyk give lip service to engagement, but then so does Bush-Cheney.
The "new defensive alliance" with Arab states of the Middle East that Sen. Clinton has been proposing in the past few weeks is so similar to the anti-Iran alliance that the Bush administration has been trying to sell to the Sunni Arab states (with Israel as a silent partner), that I must admit I cannot see the difference. In fact, the "Bush Doctrine" toward Iran and the Arab states was nothing but a continuation of the "Clinton-Indyk Doctrine" that preceded it, and it now appears that if Hillary should win the presidency, we will come full circle back to Clinton-Indyk redux.
I have known Martin Indyk since we were at Columbia together, and I respect him as a professional. But I thought dual containment was a terrible idea from the first time I heard it, and Martin knows it. By emphasizing threats and sanctions above even the most minimal engagement, I think this concept was the origin of many of our worst mistakes and missed opportunities over the past 15 years.
Characteristically, this latest version never stops to ask how the regional states may react to our unilateral unfolding of an "umbrella," much less our anticipation that they will respond with gratitude and formal recognition of Israel. That is what Indyk specifies as the price. This sounds like the kind of unrealistic expectations that we have built into our Middle East policies repeatedly over the past dozen years.
As my friends know well, I have been a stout defender of Hillary Clinton's campaign from the very beginning, while maintaining my admiration for Barack Obama. (In the most recent case, I was impressed by the fact that Obama refused to rise to the bait, while she accepted the hypothetical and ran with it.) I respected the depth of her politically skilled network, her grit and determination, and her ability to take a punch. My major argument, of course, was Clinton's experience. But experience is a two-edged sword.
The chance for a fresh start - for "change" in the current political lexicon - was to me the great hope of this presidential campaign. But Clinton's recent remarks, and the underlying policy from which they apparently sprang, are evidence that, at least on this issue, we might only look forward to more of the same under a Clinton presidency. In that sense, I think we would be losing one of the great chances of this generation to begin to fashion a more sensible policy in a region that I care about greatly.
--By Scott MacLeod/Dubai
May 8, 2008 11:51
The Night Watch
Photo by Pasqual Gorriz
Abu Ziad runs an unusually busy -- and unusually well-armed -- aluminum hardware store. In the back office behind the stockroom and workshop, he receives a constant stream of walkie-talkie carrying visitors wearing combat boots and utility vests with bulges at the hip. They aren't here to order screen doors and window frames. Abu Ziad is the security chief for Tariq Jdeideh, one of the largest Sunni neighborhood in West Beirut, and which is surrounded by Shia Muslim areas.
Tariq Jdeideh is Lebanon's new sectarian frontline, and almost every night there is some kind of clash or incident between Abu Ziad's men and their opposite numbers, mostly street youth loosely affiliated with Shia parties such as Amal. Earlier this week, while visiting Abu Ziad, word came in of one incident. An Amal member had allegedly attacked a Tariq Jdeideh resident, and Abu Ziad's men responded by burning the guy's motor-scooter. Not long afterwards, an anonymous caller threatened Abu Ziad: "Don't leave the neighborhood, or we we'll get you and you children."
Abu Ziad didn't seem particularly worried, though he called his eldest son and told him to return home immediately by avoiding alleys and driving only on busy highways. "He's on high security alert all the time, anyway," said Abu Ziad. "Everyone is filling their homes with guns now. War is knocking at the door."
Abu Ziad has some 10,000 men -- all of them volunteers or paid a modest stipend -- under his command, 500 who would be willing to die to protect their homes and families, he said. Closed circuit cameras monitor the entrances to the neighborhood, backed by rooftop spotters who keep track of anyone trying to set up car bombs or otherwise spy. "If someone is pretending to sell vegetables but is not really selling vegetables, we kick him out. No one can come here and put up their flags and posters."
"We used to believe in Lebanon, and we used to believe in the government and the army," said Abu Ziad, between taking security phone calls and doing very little metal business. "But now they want the Sunni sect to vanish. They want us out of our homes, and to put someone else in our homes. So were are taking control of the streets to get our privacy by force."
Night falls on Tariq Jdeideh, but the street lights don't come on. The neighborhood watch, some 20 young men on each street, use the cover of darkness to set up checkpoints, asking each driver to turn off their headlights and give a password, while the occasional housewife in headscarf and nightgown looks down from the balconies at the commotion below. A few men wearing black ski masks and carrying cheap new Chinese-made Kalashnikov assault riffles show up. They say they have military training -- the result of national service -- but are clearly eager amateurs. "We have jobs and careers," said one. "You could meet me on the street tomorrow and not know the difference."
In fact, there doesn't seem to be much difference at all between Tariq Jdeideh and any other neighborhood in West Beirut, certainly not the Shia one just a stone's throw away on the other side of a well-lit highway. Young men who look nearly identical to the young men here patrol streets that look identical to these and return home at dawn to apartment buildings just like these. A call comes over the radio. Someone suspicious is on the highway. He is wearing a striped t-shirt. There is much excitement and motor-scootering.
The dark dream of Tariq Jdeideh ends abruptly with just a five minute drive. Downtown Beirut is in the midst of its after-hours ritual of dining and clubbing. But which is the dangerous fantasy: the street patrols that go on night after night, or the procession of luxury cars and women in short skirts?
--Andrew Lee Butters/Beirut
May 7, 2008 2:40
Beirut Demo Turns Violent
Soldiers separating Shia Muslim neighborhoods from Sunni Muslim neighborhoods in West Beirut where a trade union demonstration and strike over wages tuned into an opposition protest
On a Beirut scale of civil disturbances, today's demonstration by labor unions demaninding better wages was relatively mild. Still, the sound of rifle fire and rocket explosions ecohing through the streets of Lebanon's capitol is just one sign that the once dormant protest movement to bring down the Lebanese government is coming back to life.
Not only were there no trade unions in sight, but instead of a planned Labor Day-style parade, the demonstration turned into a series of burning tire and rubble barricades guarded by young men belonging to the Shia Muslim opposition parties Hizballah and Amal. This in turn prompted many residents from Sunni Muslims neighborhoods to mobilize in support of the Lebanese government, and prevent the strike from shutting down their areas. Riots broke out in at least one area where Sunni and Shia neighborhoods meet.
This seemed to be a replay of demonstrations in January of 2007, when the Hizballah led opposition movement shut down Beirut with a much larger and more coordinated show of force. When that action too spun out of control, sparking riots in some of the same neighborhoods where unrest occurred today, the opposition backed down, rather than risk pushing the country closer to civil war.
Whether today's unrest presages a return to turblent street politcis remains to be seen. But the deadlock between Lebanon's opposition -- supported by Syria and Iran -- and the government -- supported by the United States -- remains as intractable as ever. Each side accuses the other of violating the democratic norms of the Lebanese state, which divides power among its main religious groups. The government objects to HIzballah's existence as an armed anti-Israeli militia and state-within-a-state. On the other hand, the Hizballah-led opposition accuses the government of collaborating with Israel and of illegally holding onto power despite the absence of any Shia Muslim ministers, as mandated by the constitution. The political crises is such that he country has been unable to hold elections for president since last fall, and is still without a head of state.
A Lebanese journalist was caught in the middle of a clash between street gangs
--Andrew Lee Butters/Beirut
May 3, 2008 10:20
Sami al-Hajj is Free
Al-Jazeera journalist Sami al-Hajj, 38, has been freed after being detained at the U.S. military camp for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for the past six years without being charged or tried for any crime. Al-Jazeera, which followed his case closely, consistently denied that al-Hajj was guilty of working with terrorist groups like al-Qaeda.
I see no sign of the Pentagon, Justice Department, State Department or any other U.S. government department announcing or commenting on al-Hajj's detention and release since al-Jazeera reported his freedom last week. U.S. forces destroyed al-Jazeera bureaus in Kabul in 2001 and Baghdad in 2003. In the latter attack, al-Jazeera journalist Tareq Ayyoub was killed. The Bush administration must give a full accounting of why it detained al-Hajj and refused to give him due process before ultimately releasing him without charge. It would also be interesting to learn why a senior U.S. defense official anonymously told Reuters that al-Hajj was not being freed but simply transferred to Sudanese authorities while the Sudanese justice minister said al-Hajj was a free man who would not face arrest or charges. That sounds a lot like shameful character assassination of a man who has already been denied his legal rights for far too long.
Al-Hajj and press freedom groups are condemning the manner and conditions of his detention. Al-Hajj arrived in Khartoum, Sudan, aboard a U.S. military transport plane on Friday. He was taken off the flight on a stretcher and sent to a hospital, apparently suffering the effects of a 16-month hunger strike. Al-Hajj was captured by Pakistani forces on the Afghan border and later turned over to U.S. forces.
Al-Jazeera broadcast a clip of al-Hajj making strong allegations against U.S. authorities, such as that the Guantanamo inmates have been treated worse than animals. "Thank God...for being free again," he said. "Our eyes have the right to shed tears after we have spent all those years in prison. But our joy is not going to be complete until our brothers in Guantanamo Bay are freed. The situation is very bad and getting worse day after day. Some of our brothers live without clothing."
Robert Menard of Reporters Without Borders said: "Sami al-Haj should never have been held so long. U.S. authorities never proved that he had been involved in any kind of criminal activity. This case is yet another example of the injustice reigning in Guantanamo. The base should be closed as quickly as possible."
Joel Simon of the Committee to Protect Journalists said: "Sami al-Haj is the latest journalist to be freed by the U.S. military after spending years b