In the wake of the insurgent terrorist attack that killed more than a dozen Egyptian Army soldiers at a camp on the Sinai-Israel border, the Egyptian Army was compelled to act... and did so by remilitarizing a significant part of the Sinai and then whacking a fair number of the resident and transient terrs. So far, so good. I have it on good authority that some number of (older) M-60 MBTs were part of the Egyptian Army force sent in, and that there was open communication with Israel to forstall any concerns with that being a violation of the terms of the Camp David Peace Accords.
Well, some time has passed, and as I've mentioned (see previous thread post) there are signs that the Egyptian 'government' and military aren't on the same page any longer... and now there are some concerns.
...entirely warranted concerns, in my opinion.
Not a good time to be stuck out on dust, checkpoints and rowboat duty. Might be time for Task Force Sinai to be... shall we say "re-enforced". Either that or get the hell ready to bug out...
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Friday, March 30, 2012
Calling in support
I'm on a deadline this fine evening (local time) and as such won't be going through sources until much later. So I'm calling in support:
Here's the link to the always superb NightWatch for today. The topics are Azerbaijan-Israel, Syria and Mali. The writing is by and for analysts, but I think these topics will be of some general interest as well. I haven't even touched on the Azerbaijan story here (mostly out of concern that I'd be too angry at the time of the leak), but it has become widespread open-source so I don't mind linking to a discussion of it now.
Enjoy!
Here's the link to the always superb NightWatch for today. The topics are Azerbaijan-Israel, Syria and Mali. The writing is by and for analysts, but I think these topics will be of some general interest as well. I haven't even touched on the Azerbaijan story here (mostly out of concern that I'd be too angry at the time of the leak), but it has become widespread open-source so I don't mind linking to a discussion of it now.
Enjoy!
Monday, March 12, 2012
I'm impressed.
Experience changes a person. Sometimes for worse, but more often for the far-better:
Please read the whole article.
"But I have more important questions for Irish artists. What happened to the notion of the artist as a free thinking individual? Why have Irish artists surrendered to group-think on Israel? Could it be due to something as crude as career-advancement?A rare occurance that shouldn't be so rare. In a world where an Irish city considers a statue honoring an enemy of freedom and Hollywood rich folk are "proud" to stand with the likes of Hugo Chavez, seeing one person overcome their environment and see the real world for what it is tis a joy to behold.
"Artistic leadership comes from the top. Aosdana, Ireland's State-sponsored affiliation of creative artists, has also signed the boycott. Aosdana is a big player. Its members populate Arts Council funding panels.
"Some artists could assume that if their name is on the same boycott sheet as the people assessing their applications, it can hardly hurt their chances. No doubt Aosdana would dispute this assumption. But the perception of a preconceived position on Israel is hard to avoid."
Please read the whole article.
Friday, September 23, 2011
You realize, of course, ...
...this means war.
No, not the Bugs Bunny cartoon joke.
Bets are, this is the run up to the real thing.
No, not the Bugs Bunny cartoon joke.
Bets are, this is the run up to the real thing.
Monday, May 23, 2011
All the context you need.
So American President B. Obama gave a rather 'important' policy speech last week at the U.S. State Department about all things Middle East...
Conspicuous in its absence was any notable applause, even during pauses in the speech intended for such.
Most of it was a restatement of other pronouncements and some dollar figures on how much support the reformist+military governments in Egypt and Tunisia are in line to get. These things are expensive, after all. (More expensive if we don't, the West drops the ball and lets a one-man/one-vote/one-time Islamist regime form.)
A little bit of it was free anti-totalitarianism. Picking on Qaddafi and Assad is pretty easy stuff these days, after all.
But then, someone let their preferences override good sense and statesmanship...
...and the next day got schooled for saying said nonsense.
This is all the context you need to know to understand how Mr. Obama could say what he said, and why Mr. Netanyahu needed to say what he said in reply.
The pity of it all is that the damage is done.
The only question is when the next war starts.
***
Personal Note: This author, at roughly the time both photos were taken, went to a university with lots of the type on the right, got spit on by some of them, and elsewhere worked with the type pictured on the left. Based on that experience, I to this day choose to associate with the latter. If that is an editorial bias, so be it. My basement; my rules.
***
edit: photo link corrected.
Conspicuous in its absence was any notable applause, even during pauses in the speech intended for such.
Most of it was a restatement of other pronouncements and some dollar figures on how much support the reformist+military governments in Egypt and Tunisia are in line to get. These things are expensive, after all. (More expensive if we don't, the West drops the ball and lets a one-man/one-vote/one-time Islamist regime form.)
A little bit of it was free anti-totalitarianism. Picking on Qaddafi and Assad is pretty easy stuff these days, after all.
But then, someone let their preferences override good sense and statesmanship...
...and the next day got schooled for saying said nonsense.
This is all the context you need to know to understand how Mr. Obama could say what he said, and why Mr. Netanyahu needed to say what he said in reply.
The pity of it all is that the damage is done.
The only question is when the next war starts.
***
Personal Note: This author, at roughly the time both photos were taken, went to a university with lots of the type on the right, got spit on by some of them, and elsewhere worked with the type pictured on the left. Based on that experience, I to this day choose to associate with the latter. If that is an editorial bias, so be it. My basement; my rules.
***
edit: photo link corrected.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
I knew it seemed too good...
There are a lot of jokes about "too good to check" out there.
Well maybe, when the Arab League was part of the call for a no-fly zone in Libya, somebody should have checked.
. The Arab League is historically an anti-Western alliance. Specifically anti-Israel, but more than willing to have voiced troubling opinions pretty much any time Western governments are drawn into any Middle Eastern trouble. They certainly were no help at all in Lebanon in the 1980's, for one example.
.. The Qaddafi regime in Libya has never abandoned its Arab Nationalist credentials. Sure, he played the "we are African" card all the time in the AU, especially when Moammar viewed it as an extension of his petty empire, and he had his fallings out with other Arab leaders, but the Arab League never really turned against him... until, apparently, this time.
... There are elements always present in the Arab League that spend their time looking for any opportunity to get a foot in the door on matters in the unresolved portions of the Palestine Mandate. Any opportunity.
So, no one should be surprised in the slightest that *this* is their latest scheme:
There is always an angle.
Always.
Well maybe, when the Arab League was part of the call for a no-fly zone in Libya, somebody should have checked.
. The Arab League is historically an anti-Western alliance. Specifically anti-Israel, but more than willing to have voiced troubling opinions pretty much any time Western governments are drawn into any Middle Eastern trouble. They certainly were no help at all in Lebanon in the 1980's, for one example.
.. The Qaddafi regime in Libya has never abandoned its Arab Nationalist credentials. Sure, he played the "we are African" card all the time in the AU, especially when Moammar viewed it as an extension of his petty empire, and he had his fallings out with other Arab leaders, but the Arab League never really turned against him... until, apparently, this time.
... There are elements always present in the Arab League that spend their time looking for any opportunity to get a foot in the door on matters in the unresolved portions of the Palestine Mandate. Any opportunity.
So, no one should be surprised in the slightest that *this* is their latest scheme:
The Arab League on Sunday announced during a special meeting in Cairo that it plans to press the UN to impose a no-fly zone over Gaza amid an escalation in violence in the area, AFP reported.I knew it seemed too good when they seemed to be making a reasonable request to intervene in Libya; Reasonable requests and the Arab League have simply never coexisted in the past.
Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa said he plans to present the proposal to the UN Security Council, the report said.
There is always an angle.
Always.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
A timely assist.
Thank you, France, for the timely assist:
***
The BBC also has this video taken during the rescue.
***
More about the circumstances of the evacuation and a similar request for evacuation by Israel.
Late on Wednesday, French helicopters moved in to evacuate the Japanese ambassador, Okamura Yoshifumi, after his home near the presidential residence was invaded by unidentified gunmen.Once, long ago and in a very different place, our roles were reversed.
The envoy and his aides were whisked to safety in a French military camp at Port-Bouet, south of Abidjan, the French embassy said.
The French said they had acted after a request from Japan and the UN.
***
The BBC also has this video taken during the rescue.
***
More about the circumstances of the evacuation and a similar request for evacuation by Israel.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Sunday Evening Push
OK... who put Monday directly after Wednesday last week...?
((grin))
It has been one of those weekends that looks a whole lot like the work week here. Hope yours went better.
Here's your Open thread for Sunday, just in case you've something to say about it. ...Or about all the other things happening out there in the wide world.
Use this wisely, folks. The usual rules apply: play nice.
As always, thank you All for coming here.
***
Here are some brief links of things passed over the last couple of days:
Switzerland continues to show remarkable good sense on matters of a free people maintaining arms.
A series of rounds of hostage releases in Colombia has freed four of the many, many hostages of the FARC. I'd like to say it is the beginning of freedom for all the kidnapped... but it likely is not. A one-off or just a step forward.
Meanwhile, fan favorite Hugo Chavez continues to make a mockery of himself. Just for reference sake... Chavez couldn't carry Hosni Mubarak's briefcase. Sure would be nice if the people of Venezuela were a little more motivated to show him the door after seeing how things went in Egypt, though.
Ayman Nour of Egypt's al-Glad (Tomorrow Party) should have more sense than to be saying things like this, especially in the media. Unless, of course, he is proposing returning Sinai to Israel... (Boy, that wouldn't make it a minute in the court of public opinion, but again, it sure would be nice.)
((grin))
It has been one of those weekends that looks a whole lot like the work week here. Hope yours went better.
Here's your Open thread for Sunday, just in case you've something to say about it. ...Or about all the other things happening out there in the wide world.
Use this wisely, folks. The usual rules apply: play nice.
As always, thank you All for coming here.
***
Here are some brief links of things passed over the last couple of days:
Switzerland continues to show remarkable good sense on matters of a free people maintaining arms.
A series of rounds of hostage releases in Colombia has freed four of the many, many hostages of the FARC. I'd like to say it is the beginning of freedom for all the kidnapped... but it likely is not. A one-off or just a step forward.
Meanwhile, fan favorite Hugo Chavez continues to make a mockery of himself. Just for reference sake... Chavez couldn't carry Hosni Mubarak's briefcase. Sure would be nice if the people of Venezuela were a little more motivated to show him the door after seeing how things went in Egypt, though.
Ayman Nour of Egypt's al-Glad (Tomorrow Party) should have more sense than to be saying things like this, especially in the media. Unless, of course, he is proposing returning Sinai to Israel... (Boy, that wouldn't make it a minute in the court of public opinion, but again, it sure would be nice.)
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Freedom for Iran: One year since...
It has been one year since the Green Movement came out in opposition to the rigged re-election of M. Ahmadinejad and regime. A year filled with faint hope and tragic losses for the Opposition.
Things are no better today. The thugs, and the security forces of the government, are out in massive force to prevent any anniversary protests.
Somehow, in spite of that, the Green Movement remains alive. Perhaps only clinging to life, but still it goes forward.
But, going back to the BBC article first cited,
I'd say this is a good start even if it is a year (years?) late and the Obama administration wants to undermine it before it even gets out of the Congress.
A Green Movement Iran might not be ideal in a realpolitik sense, but it certainly would be better in a moral sense than the Pasdaran (IRGC) rats running Iran now... and their word in negotiations might be worth something.
Hope for a Free Iran.
Help create one in any way you can.
Plan as if it won't happen.
Things are no better today. The thugs, and the security forces of the government, are out in massive force to prevent any anniversary protests.
Somehow, in spite of that, the Green Movement remains alive. Perhaps only clinging to life, but still it goes forward.
However, in a fresh statement issued late on June 11 night, Musavi suggested a change of opposition tactics to enable dissent to continue. Vowing to “continue our peaceful methods,” he said that while the opposition “may put off its presence in one arena,” it would pursue other avenues.That's all they have for now.
Speaking to Karrubi’s website, Sahamnews, Musavi said Iran's rulers had turned away from the goals of the revolution and the constitution and accused them of “shutting peoples' mouths, banning the media, holding elections as we saw last year, and filling the prisons” with their opponents. But he said the opposition movement must stay “alive as [the rulers] will be afraid of this very thing.”
Rather than demonstrations, he said the opposition must use different methods to spread its message, including “real and virtual social networks.” “We should...help expand websites...as films shot on cell phones...are our best instruments. They act like an army," he said.
But, going back to the BBC article first cited,
Mr Ahmadinejad's government continues to be tellingly nervous about its hold on power. It has been steadily tightening its grip on the media and the internet, and even warning foreign exiles not to speak out.Gee, that would be too bad if Ahmadinejad ran out of money. He might have to cut back on subsidies to all manner of nasty characters (Like *this*, just to pick the latest example) out to cause mayhem in the world.
The opposition seem to have run out of ideas. Many Iranians are now reduced to sullen acquiescence. The government's next big problem looks to be the economy: with falling oil revenues, it could be, fairly rapidly, running out of money.
I'd say this is a good start even if it is a year (years?) late and the Obama administration wants to undermine it before it even gets out of the Congress.
A Green Movement Iran might not be ideal in a realpolitik sense, but it certainly would be better in a moral sense than the Pasdaran (IRGC) rats running Iran now... and their word in negotiations might be worth something.
Hope for a Free Iran.
Help create one in any way you can.
Plan as if it won't happen.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
It is a ploy
The news media has picked up on the reports that the Palestinian Authority intends to make a unilateral appeal to the UNSC for recognition of Statehood. The claim goes something like this:
What appears to be actually happening is a ploy to self-collapse the Palestinian Authority and throw the door open to things like the "One-State Solution" so beloved by Arab League proxies in the negotiations.
Otherwise, the burden of protecting themselves falls squarely upon Israel.
Again.
The Palestinians plan to go to the U.N. Security Council in an effort to secure international support for an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, officials said on Sunday.Leaving aside the fact that the PLO declared "independence" back in 1988 (likely-not-coincidentally also on the 15th of November)...
What appears to be actually happening is a ploy to self-collapse the Palestinian Authority and throw the door open to things like the "One-State Solution" so beloved by Arab League proxies in the negotiations.
Palestinian officials predict the US would veto a UN resolution. If the resolution fails, senior Palestinian officials are considering completely dissolving the Palestinian Authority. That would leave the burden of running the West Bank to Israel--a policy that the Israeli government would be fearful of.It is a ploy. A rather nasty one, actually. It can be countered diplomatically, but that will take steely resolve on the part of Israel's friends to hold the line.
Otherwise, the burden of protecting themselves falls squarely upon Israel.
Again.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Canada leads, but...
...will enough others follow?
In one of the most appropriate public reactions to the conduct of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Canadian Foreign Ministry has announced a boycott of the U.N. General Assembly speech by the President of Iran.
After all, it is a given what Ahmadinejad believes. He restated it only last week.
Will the U.S. or (granted, this would be a surprise) the Japanese delegation walk out when all good conscience says they should?
***
Afterhours Update:
The speech came and went... and eleven more national delegations walked out, including the Americans. AFP wire has it like this:
H/T to Allahpundit at Hot Air for getting this report out. When compared to the incomplete coverage in this FOXNews report that only cites "Four delegations walked out during the Iranian president's remarks including the United States and Canada", it just goes to show: second source *everything*, folks.
In one of the most appropriate public reactions to the conduct of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Canadian Foreign Ministry has announced a boycott of the U.N. General Assembly speech by the President of Iran.
...saying his outbursts about the Holocaust and Israel are “shameful.”In fairness, the German Foreign Ministry has asked European nations to walk out "if Ahmadinejad again denies the Holocaust, or makes anti-Semitic statements", but the Canadians are setting the bar higher.
Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon will be at the world body to attend the opening of the UN General Assembly’s annual debate, but officials signal he and other members of the Canadian delegation will vacate the Canadian seats when the Islamic republic’s president approaches the podium.
After all, it is a given what Ahmadinejad believes. He restated it only last week.
Will the U.S. or (granted, this would be a surprise) the Japanese delegation walk out when all good conscience says they should?
***
Afterhours Update:
The speech came and went... and eleven more national delegations walked out, including the Americans. AFP wire has it like this:
Delegations from Argentina, Australia, Britain, Costa Rica, Denmark, France Germany, Hungary, Italy, New Zealand and the United States left the room as Ahmadinejad began to rail against Israel, a European source said.Add Canada to that list, as they were already headed out the door as the speaker approached the podium. The Israelis weren't even in the chambers.
H/T to Allahpundit at Hot Air for getting this report out. When compared to the incomplete coverage in this FOXNews report that only cites "Four delegations walked out during the Iranian president's remarks including the United States and Canada", it just goes to show: second source *everything*, folks.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
The Jews of Venice of the Americas
The history of two words one would likely be surprised to find intertwined:
Ghetto: From the Venetian geti, meaning the foundry district of the city, to which the Jewish community was confined by decree in 1516 A.D. (C.E.).
Venezuela: the name of the country comes from the Spanish "little Venice" given to the Gulf of Venezuela based on an imagined similarity to the Lagoon of Venice.
How do they fit together?
Todd Bensman of the San Antonio Express-News (U.S.A.), writing on the situation of the Jews of Venezuela as the Chavistas turn on the propaganda-hate machine again: The world's oldest hate finds new life in Venezuela.
Please take the time to read it.
Ghetto: From the Venetian geti, meaning the foundry district of the city, to which the Jewish community was confined by decree in 1516 A.D. (C.E.).
Venezuela: the name of the country comes from the Spanish "little Venice" given to the Gulf of Venezuela based on an imagined similarity to the Lagoon of Venice.
How do they fit together?
Todd Bensman of the San Antonio Express-News (U.S.A.), writing on the situation of the Jews of Venezuela as the Chavistas turn on the propaganda-hate machine again: The world's oldest hate finds new life in Venezuela.
Please take the time to read it.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Black August?
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has always had an uncomfortable relationship with the common population of the Jordan River region. Being a foreign line of nobility that was placed atop one part of the partition of the former Ottoman Empire after World War I, and being functionally exiled from Peninsular Arabia by their rivals the House of Saud, it is no wonder that domestic politics in Jordan are still based as much on the fears of insecure rulers as anything else.
How insecure? How about the fact that over 70% of the population of Jordan self-identifies as "Palestinian"? How about the uncomfortable historical fact that the land itself has been promised, and claimed, thrice over in the aftermath of the defeat of the Ottoman overlords? (Syria certainly hasn't forgotten that, and has acted upon their claim in the recent enough past.) How about the fact that the last time the Palestine Liberation Organization tried to take over the country (in 1970), the result was a war *inside Jordan*... General Information Only, but to explain the full horror of that: Black September.
So when rumors get going, the conspiracy theories circulate, and when those rumors are that Israel is supposedly going to evict all the Palestinians from the West Bank area... panic ensues in the highest reaches of the Jordanian government.
Well, here we go again:
How insecure? How about the fact that over 70% of the population of Jordan self-identifies as "Palestinian"? How about the uncomfortable historical fact that the land itself has been promised, and claimed, thrice over in the aftermath of the defeat of the Ottoman overlords? (Syria certainly hasn't forgotten that, and has acted upon their claim in the recent enough past.) How about the fact that the last time the Palestine Liberation Organization tried to take over the country (in 1970), the result was a war *inside Jordan*... General Information Only, but to explain the full horror of that: Black September.
So when rumors get going, the conspiracy theories circulate, and when those rumors are that Israel is supposedly going to evict all the Palestinians from the West Bank area... panic ensues in the highest reaches of the Jordanian government.
(Israeli) Defense officials said this week that despite Israeli assurances that the Netanyahu government was not planning on evicting Palestinians to Jordan, Amman's anxiety was still high, likely an indication that "the Jordanians are still concerned that Israel is considering Jordan as an alternative for a Palestinian state," one official said. "The visit was aimed at assuaging those fears and ensuring that strategic relations between the countries stay on track."Reasonable fear, though. The original division of the region into the Palestine Mandate and the Trans-Jordan was in part an intentional effort by the British to make Trans-Jordan (now the Kingdom of Jordan) an Arab-ruled Palestinian nation. No organized forcible relocations happened until the British were out of the picture though (but a lot happened from 1948 on... mostly exiling the Jewish residents of the Arab-ruled states surrounding Israel. There were removals of Palestinians from land in the Mandate as well, and then the massive self-exile of the Arab population from the Mandate at the time of Israeli Independence).
Well, here we go again:
Alarmed by rumors regarding a US-backed scheme to turn Jordan into a homeland for Palestinians, Abdullah is planning a series of steps to foil any attempt to resettle Palestinian refugees in the kingdom.Not the best move, that. Let's hope it wasn't a fatal mistake.
The rumors were triggered by talks about a plan to establish a decentralized government in Jordan, where local communities would enjoy some form of autonomy.
The Jordanian authorities' decision to revoke the citizenship of Palestinians in Jordan - who make up more than 70 percent of the kingdom's population - added fuel to the fire by giving substance to the rumors.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Impose
It ran in the al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia) today...
Which begs any number of questions, but first and foremost comes to mind "Exactly by what legal means of doing so do you imagine such an imposition would exempt Saudi Arabia's theocratic monarchy from a similar 'imposition' of a 'solution' as defined by outsiders?"
"We want from you a serious participation to solve the Palestinian issue and impose the solution if necessary," the Saudi monarch told Obama, according to the paper, which is owned by a nephew of the monarch. It did not elaborate.--source: Reuters
Which begs any number of questions, but first and foremost comes to mind "Exactly by what legal means of doing so do you imagine such an imposition would exempt Saudi Arabia's theocratic monarchy from a similar 'imposition' of a 'solution' as defined by outsiders?"
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Iranian Missile Test
Time for another round of chest-thumping in the run-up to the Iranian Presidential Election (on June 12th, 2009)...
The Iranians cranked off the latest version of their IRBM.
The claim is that this one was solid-fueled, which would be a major improvement (if true).
All manner of U.S. government officials have issued statements, mostly of the 'it is a bad thing' sort, but one statement in particular stood out:
***
Follow-up:
You want to see "thwarting"? *This* is just one of the choices, and M. Flournoy's name came up in the decision to continue funding this project as well. No mention is made in the report as to if she recommended spending the money elsewhere.
The Iranians cranked off the latest version of their IRBM.
The claim is that this one was solid-fueled, which would be a major improvement (if true).
All manner of U.S. government officials have issued statements, mostly of the 'it is a bad thing' sort, but one statement in particular stood out:
In a breakfast meeting with reporters, Undersecretary of Defense Michele Flournoy said she could not confirm reports of a launch but spoke in general about Iran's missile program.Madame Undersecretary, if that was "thwarted", I'd hate to see what "not thwarted" looks like. They got the missile up, fired, and tested. The Iranian thinking at this point has to be "Deal with *that*".
"There are U.N. Security Council resolutions in place that ... thwart that kind of activity," Flournoy said. "So I do think that it poses a security threat to the region and that we will have to, probably, to deal with it."
***
Follow-up:
You want to see "thwarting"? *This* is just one of the choices, and M. Flournoy's name came up in the decision to continue funding this project as well. No mention is made in the report as to if she recommended spending the money elsewhere.
Monday, May 4, 2009
The Weekly N&C for May 4th, 2009
Two thousand years in the making
Roughly speaking, that is; but who’s counting? So at the risk of leaving the impression that one has wandered into an episode of "Mysterious Missives of the Monastic Mystics" on some cable channel, let’s drag this out a bit. What if…?
. One of the avowed goals of Orthodox Judaism could be made real, or proven forever lost.
.. The Vatican could regain control *and sovereignty* over many of the Christian pilgrimage sites of the Holy Land for the first time since, well, since the end of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
… A real and lasting accommodation could be reached between Israel and the Vatican, and thus with the largest Christian faction still inclined to support Palestinian Arab causes over those of the nation of Israel.
…. But,
….. The cost would be the opening of a legal door through which Islamic states could claim exclusive rights to the grounds of Mount Moriah and all the structures thereon.
…… The same Mount Moriah known as Har haBáyit (The Temple Mount) and as al-haram al-qudsī ash-sharīf (The Noble Sanctuary).
If you were to speak for the Government of Israel, would *you* make that deal?
Or a deal that looked a lot like that?
Well it seems that, if your name is President Shimon Peres of Israel, you might just try to pull it off.
Alright; enough with the Raiders-of-the-Lost-Da-Vinci-Code talk. But really, there is something very serious about all this, and the above-linked article only touches upon just how incredibly convoluted a territorial and material sovereignty issue is being brought to the fore in the weeks before the May 11th ~15th Papal visit to Israel and the Palestine Territories.
The short form is this: Various sects of various Abrahamic religions have claim to various sites considered sacred in their various traditions within the boundaries of the former Palestine Mandate Territory. Several of them claim the same places, but not the same structures. All of them have pressed these claims for centuries (millennium in many cases) and in regard to a few of the sites have reached accommodation with rivals to either share or partition access to them. But from the perspective of legal jurisdiction, those sites that are within the boundaries of Israel are Israeli territory, and those within the Palestinian National Authority are to be part of PNA territory at the time of a two-state resolution to the occupation thereof by Israel.
So to take the example of the Church of the Nativity, considered sacred by both Christianity and Islam: it is administered jointly by Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Armenian Apostolic authorities; it is physically located in Beit Lahm (Bethlehem) in the PNA-administered West Bank; it is under obligatory protection by the Israeli occupation. The sovereignty issue is purely one of recognizing the PNA; once a Palestinian state comes fully into being that site will be within that sovereign territory… except the extant agreements on the administration of the site grant some privileges to the religious occupants. But the territoriality of the site is not in question.
The same sort of arrangement has traditionally been offered regarding the various sites fully under Israeli control, whether Jewish, Christian and/or Moslem, even granting privileges to the administration of the Qubbat as-Sakhra (Dome of the Rock) and the al Masjid al-Aqsa (al-Aqsa Mosque) under an Islamic trust. But these are *arrangements*, not concessions of sovereignty. The PNA would love to have sovereign control of the Noble Sanctuary in its entirety, though... more on that below.
In about a week, there will be a visit to the Holy Land by Pope Benedict XVI. Apparently, President Shimon Peres of Israel has instructed his office to pressure the government to transfer sovereignty over six Christian sites to the Vatican.
Transfer
Give
It would be entirely reasonable at this point to ask “Why on Earth would the government of Israel create extraterritorial enclaves for Christian holy sites, especially given the claims of other religions to their respective sites?”
It can’t be about money; no compensation has apparently been offered.
It *might* be about something else, though. The Temple Treasures.
There is the vaguest possibility that, contrary to all denials by the Vatican to date, the Holy See does have in its possession (somewhere) what remains of the relics of the Second Temple that were taken as prize by the Roman Empire (as immortalized by the depiction of the sack on the Arch of Titus in Rome).
At least one researcher has made the claim that the Treasures might still exist, and has an idea who controls them now.
If, and I’ll grant that is a *big* if, the Vatican has the ability to see to the transfer of those remaining relics to the nation of Israel, that would be an answer to one of the dreams of the Orthodox sects of Judaism; to have the valued items of the Second Temple restored to Jerusalem.
But, with all things comes a price.
To establish the precedent of granting extraterritoriality to the six sites desired by the Vatican throws open the door to the claims upon the Noble Sanctuary… which, in case it hasn’t come to mind yet, is built upon Mount Moriah; the very ground believed by the faithful (and a lot of researchers) to be the site of the Second Temple.
Should Israel set aside most all normal diplomatic concerns and grant extraterritoriality to the Vatican claims, the most likely result will be a hardening of the Islamic Arab claim to the Noble Sanctuary. If that were to occur, Israel would be faced with the choice of granting some kind of equivalent status to the Islamic claims, or finding that the slim hope of ever resolving the Palestinian issue by an agreed two-state solution have been dashed upon the rocks of disappointment.
Given how badly things have gone with Gaza, and given the level of support that can be expected at this time from Israel’s traditionally closest ally, it probably isn’t worth it.
The Pope is coming to visit, with or without this matter being resolved.
Offer him a nice visit. Be nice to the pilgrims that will come to be a part of his visit.
But don’t offer extraterritorial sovereignty for the six sites. Formalize an “accommodation”, or grant further “privileges”, but don’t give them away for all the treasure in the world.
Otherwise, someone else will be lined up to “get what’s his”… even if it is yours.
***
End Notes:
Most all citations are linked in the text above.
The Vatican has issued a statement to the media on the coming visit, which addresses several other matters but does not mention the issue of seeking sovereignty over the six sites.
General Information on the particular sites and public figures mentioned in this article and in the linked citations can be found at Wikipedia. The usual rule applies: check all the sources cited by the Wiki-p entry.
Roughly speaking, that is; but who’s counting? So at the risk of leaving the impression that one has wandered into an episode of "Mysterious Missives of the Monastic Mystics" on some cable channel, let’s drag this out a bit. What if…?
. One of the avowed goals of Orthodox Judaism could be made real, or proven forever lost.
.. The Vatican could regain control *and sovereignty* over many of the Christian pilgrimage sites of the Holy Land for the first time since, well, since the end of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
… A real and lasting accommodation could be reached between Israel and the Vatican, and thus with the largest Christian faction still inclined to support Palestinian Arab causes over those of the nation of Israel.
…. But,
….. The cost would be the opening of a legal door through which Islamic states could claim exclusive rights to the grounds of Mount Moriah and all the structures thereon.
…… The same Mount Moriah known as Har haBáyit (The Temple Mount) and as al-haram al-qudsī ash-sharīf (The Noble Sanctuary).
If you were to speak for the Government of Israel, would *you* make that deal?
Or a deal that looked a lot like that?
Well it seems that, if your name is President Shimon Peres of Israel, you might just try to pull it off.
Alright; enough with the Raiders-of-the-Lost-Da-Vinci-Code talk. But really, there is something very serious about all this, and the above-linked article only touches upon just how incredibly convoluted a territorial and material sovereignty issue is being brought to the fore in the weeks before the May 11th ~15th Papal visit to Israel and the Palestine Territories.
The short form is this: Various sects of various Abrahamic religions have claim to various sites considered sacred in their various traditions within the boundaries of the former Palestine Mandate Territory. Several of them claim the same places, but not the same structures. All of them have pressed these claims for centuries (millennium in many cases) and in regard to a few of the sites have reached accommodation with rivals to either share or partition access to them. But from the perspective of legal jurisdiction, those sites that are within the boundaries of Israel are Israeli territory, and those within the Palestinian National Authority are to be part of PNA territory at the time of a two-state resolution to the occupation thereof by Israel.
So to take the example of the Church of the Nativity, considered sacred by both Christianity and Islam: it is administered jointly by Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Armenian Apostolic authorities; it is physically located in Beit Lahm (Bethlehem) in the PNA-administered West Bank; it is under obligatory protection by the Israeli occupation. The sovereignty issue is purely one of recognizing the PNA; once a Palestinian state comes fully into being that site will be within that sovereign territory… except the extant agreements on the administration of the site grant some privileges to the religious occupants. But the territoriality of the site is not in question.
The same sort of arrangement has traditionally been offered regarding the various sites fully under Israeli control, whether Jewish, Christian and/or Moslem, even granting privileges to the administration of the Qubbat as-Sakhra (Dome of the Rock) and the al Masjid al-Aqsa (al-Aqsa Mosque) under an Islamic trust. But these are *arrangements*, not concessions of sovereignty. The PNA would love to have sovereign control of the Noble Sanctuary in its entirety, though... more on that below.
In about a week, there will be a visit to the Holy Land by Pope Benedict XVI. Apparently, President Shimon Peres of Israel has instructed his office to pressure the government to transfer sovereignty over six Christian sites to the Vatican.
Transfer
Give
On Sunday, according to the report, Beit Hanassi requested that the Interior Ministry sign documents conceding sovereignty on the sites, however the interior minister refused."Beit Hanassi" is the Presidential House of Israel; "Yishai" is Interior Minister Eli Yishai, the cabinet minister who would be actually responsible for proposing such a matter to the government.
Yishai was quoted as saying that he opposes all yielding of sovereignty.
It would be entirely reasonable at this point to ask “Why on Earth would the government of Israel create extraterritorial enclaves for Christian holy sites, especially given the claims of other religions to their respective sites?”
It can’t be about money; no compensation has apparently been offered.
It *might* be about something else, though. The Temple Treasures.
There is the vaguest possibility that, contrary to all denials by the Vatican to date, the Holy See does have in its possession (somewhere) what remains of the relics of the Second Temple that were taken as prize by the Roman Empire (as immortalized by the depiction of the sack on the Arch of Titus in Rome).
At least one researcher has made the claim that the Treasures might still exist, and has an idea who controls them now.
If, and I’ll grant that is a *big* if, the Vatican has the ability to see to the transfer of those remaining relics to the nation of Israel, that would be an answer to one of the dreams of the Orthodox sects of Judaism; to have the valued items of the Second Temple restored to Jerusalem.
But, with all things comes a price.
To establish the precedent of granting extraterritoriality to the six sites desired by the Vatican throws open the door to the claims upon the Noble Sanctuary… which, in case it hasn’t come to mind yet, is built upon Mount Moriah; the very ground believed by the faithful (and a lot of researchers) to be the site of the Second Temple.
Should Israel set aside most all normal diplomatic concerns and grant extraterritoriality to the Vatican claims, the most likely result will be a hardening of the Islamic Arab claim to the Noble Sanctuary. If that were to occur, Israel would be faced with the choice of granting some kind of equivalent status to the Islamic claims, or finding that the slim hope of ever resolving the Palestinian issue by an agreed two-state solution have been dashed upon the rocks of disappointment.
Given how badly things have gone with Gaza, and given the level of support that can be expected at this time from Israel’s traditionally closest ally, it probably isn’t worth it.
The Pope is coming to visit, with or without this matter being resolved.
Offer him a nice visit. Be nice to the pilgrims that will come to be a part of his visit.
But don’t offer extraterritorial sovereignty for the six sites. Formalize an “accommodation”, or grant further “privileges”, but don’t give them away for all the treasure in the world.
Otherwise, someone else will be lined up to “get what’s his”… even if it is yours.
***
End Notes:
Most all citations are linked in the text above.
The Vatican has issued a statement to the media on the coming visit, which addresses several other matters but does not mention the issue of seeking sovereignty over the six sites.
General Information on the particular sites and public figures mentioned in this article and in the linked citations can be found at Wikipedia. The usual rule applies: check all the sources cited by the Wiki-p entry.
Monday, April 20, 2009
The Weekly N&C for April 20th, 2009
How bad is it at Durban II?
The answer to that is rather different depending upon what one’s political agenda is. “Durban II”, or more correctly the United Nations –sponsored World Conference against Racism (WCAR) 2009, Durban Review Conference, is supposed to be one of the premier international dialogues on Human Rights. However, the ongoing meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, is living up to the reputation earned at the first session at Durban, South Africa, in 2001… of being an open exercise in grievance-mongering by bands of agenda-driven non-European nations and their NGO supporters.
Allow for a moment a brief recapitulation of the inherent contradictions carried over from Durban I:
Slavery and Colonialism – much ado about reparations for the Atlantic slave trade, so much that even the then-President of Senegal was appalled by the single-minded greed associated with targeting the European nations historically involved in such; an entirely unwarranted conflation of Colonialism (specifically Imperialism) in Africa with the slave trade; no mention what so ever of either the North African or Arabian slave trades nor the roughly contemporaneous slave-taking and selling of the Ottoman Empire. The final document produced by Durban I managed to soft-pedal the issue by condemning the history of slavery but stopping short of openly advocating reparations.
Israel, Zionism and Racism – A blatant attempt was made by the Arab League representatives to resurrect the Zionism=Racism charge long a part of U.N. General Assembly speeches, to codify it in a diplomatic document and to update it (for the media, apparently) by associating Israeli acts with Apartheid. To call that a stretch of the facts is probably the kindest thing one can say about that… unless one is former-President J. Carter of the U.S.A. who has sold books and speaking engagements based on his willingness to make that claim publicly. This item as well didn’t make it into the final document as a direct charge, but the intent of the language was so obvious that neither the U.S.A. nor Israel attended the conference in protest.
Oh, and one more note about process, if you please.
The Durban I final statement, like all major summit and international conference statements, was entirely written by diplomats and staffers *before* the Conference opened. The Conference itself was simply the public opportunity for all the parties with vested political interests in what would be produced to stand up and give speeches on the topic and get their pictures taken by the world’s mass media. It would take a particularly bad (Khrushchev banging his shoe on the podium –level bad) case of diplomatic loss-of-manners to throw things into disorder. As all the invited nations to such events already know the final document’s wording before the meeting, the acceptable thing to do if a nation (or leader) can not tolerate the terms is to simply not show up for the Conference.
So Durban I barely escaped being a total failure by producing a watered-down document of no binding value on any of the major contested issues, but not without drawing a boycott from two nations who found the final statement unacceptable: the U.S.A. on principle; Israel on grounds of self-preservation. In the end, only one measurable result occurred and it certainly wasn’t the intended result of the statement drafters… UN High Commissioner on Refugees Mary Robinson lost all support she had from the U.S.A. when it came time to renew her appointment, and shortly thereafter she lost her job.
Now fast-forward to the present. Eight years later, and a Conference under the same auspices chartered to “Review” the process that produced the Durban I statement. This time the same issues have come back, although the exact wording of the slavery terms still lacks either breadth or reparations-mongering, and one more has been thrown into the mix: The specific intention to label a number of academic and political challenges to the nature of the religion of Islam as “Islamophobia” and to find that equitable with the prohibitions against Anti-Semitism.
(I refuse to even discuss here the hysterical side of the argument, nor to attempt to develop any case that Islam teaches or advocates an ideology considered a risk to world peace, so don’t even start in on that sort of debate. Cf. the dismantlement of State Shintou in the post-World War II occupation of Japan for arguments at the time as to why destroying a religion could be considered justifiable if you really must, but do it elsewhere.)
The challenge I am more than willing to make to the WCAR II DRC final document is that it is a direct affront to the principle of law in many, many societies that investigation and political discourse upon a system of social control is not merely acceptable, but a fundamental part of the inalienable right to free speech. It certainly wasn’t always so, but like lese majeste laws, they are now considered a part of the unenlightened past (at least according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
Any religion (Organized Religion; one with canon law) that places itself as an instrument of law or governance *as a state* has cast aside any protections it may have had exempting it from Free Speech challenges to that system of governance. There are many examples: The instant that the State of Israel declares it is “a Jewish state”, then criticism of the applicability of religious law to the general populace *is a valid criticism of the government*; The period where the Irish Free State based its constitution upon Papal approval of all articles placed *the role of Catholic authorities* in valid claim when challenging the codification of Irish Law. But *neither* case would justify the open-ended insult of followers of either religion. That could, and should, be taken to task as sectarianism of the worst kind.
The Organization of Islamic States, in their “contribution” to the WCAR II DRC final document, has expressly placed Islam above any such distinctions.
No surprise that, really. Like pre-Reformation Catholicism, the religion and the state are one, in their view. Islam is by intent a system of governance and social order that by design results in Islamic Theocratic States. That is one (of many) reasons why nations like Malaysia find themselves on the horns of a dilemma any time they attempt to move toward a more secular form of governance, and why nationalist states like Egypt are regularly declared “apostate regimes” suitable only for re-conquest at some unspecified date unless they cast aside such secularism.
So much for the right of self-determination of each of the peoples of the world.
So much for the unalienable right to Free Speech.
Nine countries have looked upon the WCAR II DRC final statement and found it so egregiously offensive to the principles of, well of the U.N. for one thing, that they are boycotting the Geneva session.
Australia, Germany, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Poland, and the United States of America
My only question is “Why only nine?”
***
Addenda:
There is some confusion over Canada’s participation as they have sent an observer, but are not participating in the session statement.
The conference is in session right now, and President Ahmadinejad of Iran has been speaking…
He said the magic word, it seems, as several nations' representatives just walked out.
Here is a rough transcript of his remarks. Expect a proper transcript to be available soon via wire services.
Here is the FOXNews and AP version, as of now: They report that representatives from Britain, France and Canada (observer) joined the walk out.
***
End Notes:
Here was the situation as reported going into the session.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon tried to put the best face on this mess yesterday.
Here was the German Foreign Minister’s statement on their withdrawal.
Here is the General Information on WCAR I and WCAR II DRC, from wiki-p. Links in the sources will direct you to the specific statements and proceedings. As always, when using Wikipedia, please check the sources.
WCAR I, 2001, Durban, South Africa
WCAR II DRC, 2009, Geneva, Switzerland
The answer to that is rather different depending upon what one’s political agenda is. “Durban II”, or more correctly the United Nations –sponsored World Conference against Racism (WCAR) 2009, Durban Review Conference, is supposed to be one of the premier international dialogues on Human Rights. However, the ongoing meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, is living up to the reputation earned at the first session at Durban, South Africa, in 2001… of being an open exercise in grievance-mongering by bands of agenda-driven non-European nations and their NGO supporters.
Allow for a moment a brief recapitulation of the inherent contradictions carried over from Durban I:
Slavery and Colonialism – much ado about reparations for the Atlantic slave trade, so much that even the then-President of Senegal was appalled by the single-minded greed associated with targeting the European nations historically involved in such; an entirely unwarranted conflation of Colonialism (specifically Imperialism) in Africa with the slave trade; no mention what so ever of either the North African or Arabian slave trades nor the roughly contemporaneous slave-taking and selling of the Ottoman Empire. The final document produced by Durban I managed to soft-pedal the issue by condemning the history of slavery but stopping short of openly advocating reparations.
Israel, Zionism and Racism – A blatant attempt was made by the Arab League representatives to resurrect the Zionism=Racism charge long a part of U.N. General Assembly speeches, to codify it in a diplomatic document and to update it (for the media, apparently) by associating Israeli acts with Apartheid. To call that a stretch of the facts is probably the kindest thing one can say about that… unless one is former-President J. Carter of the U.S.A. who has sold books and speaking engagements based on his willingness to make that claim publicly. This item as well didn’t make it into the final document as a direct charge, but the intent of the language was so obvious that neither the U.S.A. nor Israel attended the conference in protest.
Oh, and one more note about process, if you please.
The Durban I final statement, like all major summit and international conference statements, was entirely written by diplomats and staffers *before* the Conference opened. The Conference itself was simply the public opportunity for all the parties with vested political interests in what would be produced to stand up and give speeches on the topic and get their pictures taken by the world’s mass media. It would take a particularly bad (Khrushchev banging his shoe on the podium –level bad) case of diplomatic loss-of-manners to throw things into disorder. As all the invited nations to such events already know the final document’s wording before the meeting, the acceptable thing to do if a nation (or leader) can not tolerate the terms is to simply not show up for the Conference.
So Durban I barely escaped being a total failure by producing a watered-down document of no binding value on any of the major contested issues, but not without drawing a boycott from two nations who found the final statement unacceptable: the U.S.A. on principle; Israel on grounds of self-preservation. In the end, only one measurable result occurred and it certainly wasn’t the intended result of the statement drafters… UN High Commissioner on Refugees Mary Robinson lost all support she had from the U.S.A. when it came time to renew her appointment, and shortly thereafter she lost her job.
Now fast-forward to the present. Eight years later, and a Conference under the same auspices chartered to “Review” the process that produced the Durban I statement. This time the same issues have come back, although the exact wording of the slavery terms still lacks either breadth or reparations-mongering, and one more has been thrown into the mix: The specific intention to label a number of academic and political challenges to the nature of the religion of Islam as “Islamophobia” and to find that equitable with the prohibitions against Anti-Semitism.
(I refuse to even discuss here the hysterical side of the argument, nor to attempt to develop any case that Islam teaches or advocates an ideology considered a risk to world peace, so don’t even start in on that sort of debate. Cf. the dismantlement of State Shintou in the post-World War II occupation of Japan for arguments at the time as to why destroying a religion could be considered justifiable if you really must, but do it elsewhere.)
The challenge I am more than willing to make to the WCAR II DRC final document is that it is a direct affront to the principle of law in many, many societies that investigation and political discourse upon a system of social control is not merely acceptable, but a fundamental part of the inalienable right to free speech. It certainly wasn’t always so, but like lese majeste laws, they are now considered a part of the unenlightened past (at least according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
Any religion (Organized Religion; one with canon law) that places itself as an instrument of law or governance *as a state* has cast aside any protections it may have had exempting it from Free Speech challenges to that system of governance. There are many examples: The instant that the State of Israel declares it is “a Jewish state”, then criticism of the applicability of religious law to the general populace *is a valid criticism of the government*; The period where the Irish Free State based its constitution upon Papal approval of all articles placed *the role of Catholic authorities* in valid claim when challenging the codification of Irish Law. But *neither* case would justify the open-ended insult of followers of either religion. That could, and should, be taken to task as sectarianism of the worst kind.
The Organization of Islamic States, in their “contribution” to the WCAR II DRC final document, has expressly placed Islam above any such distinctions.
No surprise that, really. Like pre-Reformation Catholicism, the religion and the state are one, in their view. Islam is by intent a system of governance and social order that by design results in Islamic Theocratic States. That is one (of many) reasons why nations like Malaysia find themselves on the horns of a dilemma any time they attempt to move toward a more secular form of governance, and why nationalist states like Egypt are regularly declared “apostate regimes” suitable only for re-conquest at some unspecified date unless they cast aside such secularism.
So much for the right of self-determination of each of the peoples of the world.
So much for the unalienable right to Free Speech.
Nine countries have looked upon the WCAR II DRC final statement and found it so egregiously offensive to the principles of, well of the U.N. for one thing, that they are boycotting the Geneva session.
Australia, Germany, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Poland, and the United States of America
My only question is “Why only nine?”
***
Addenda:
There is some confusion over Canada’s participation as they have sent an observer, but are not participating in the session statement.
The conference is in session right now, and President Ahmadinejad of Iran has been speaking…
He said the magic word, it seems, as several nations' representatives just walked out.
Here is a rough transcript of his remarks. Expect a proper transcript to be available soon via wire services.
Here is the FOXNews and AP version, as of now: They report that representatives from Britain, France and Canada (observer) joined the walk out.
***
End Notes:
Here was the situation as reported going into the session.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon tried to put the best face on this mess yesterday.
Here was the German Foreign Minister’s statement on their withdrawal.
Here is the General Information on WCAR I and WCAR II DRC, from wiki-p. Links in the sources will direct you to the specific statements and proceedings. As always, when using Wikipedia, please check the sources.
WCAR I, 2001, Durban, South Africa
WCAR II DRC, 2009, Geneva, Switzerland
Monday, April 13, 2009
The Weekly N&C for April 13th, 2009
Leaving Denial
It has been a longstanding matter in Arab Republic of Egypt that the greatest threat always comes from within. Neither Israel’s willingness to fight on Egyptian soil rather than their own, nor Libya’s occasional threats of border warfare are existential threats; the Israelis have no desire to attack the heartland of Egypt, and the Libyans lack the capability. But Egypt is a secular Arab nation, perhaps the definitive example of the Arab Nationalist State, and that has meant that through all the years since the rise of Jamal Abdel Nasser’s seizure of the state and his securing power in the wake of the Suez Incident (1956), there has been a single significant opposition to the power of the state: The Moslem Brotherhood. This Islamist movement has significant strength in other Arab States, but nowhere does it have such deep roots as in Egypt. While the government of Egypt makes some substantial claims that the Moslem Brotherhood participates in militant resistance to the secular state, and they are certainly advocates of such, what they actually provide to the Islamist cause is an ideological base and a large following that has been taught to believe in that thinking.
The government has been more than willing to attribute all manner of plots and affairs to the Moslem Brotherhood, has placed bans on their activities and actively pursued members of the group for crimes real… and perhaps not-so-real. But one thing that was almost insistently claimed was that the activities of such Islamist inside Egypt was an Egyptian problem, caused by and blamed on Egyptians. To consider the possibility of an outside hand influencing things was often dismissed with such canards as “Sunni militants don’t cooperate with Shiite militants”.
Where that all began to break down was when the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) appeared from within the Moslem Brotherhood’s ranks in 1980. This group came to the fore with stunning rapidity and on October 6th, 1981, committed the assassination of President Anwar El Sadat. There are a host of names associated with Khalid Al-Islambouli, the assassin who would be heard of again, elsewhere: Omar Abdel-Rahman wrote the fatwa (clerical justification under Islamic Law) for the assassination; another of the Cairo-based element was Ayman Al-Zawahiri; just to cite examples.
Astoundingly, while the Egyptian government did break the cell and arrest most all of the then-called Tanzim al-Jihad, only 5 members were executed and the bulk of the mid-rank members were released from jail after serving a few years in prison. Those members then went into wide dispersal, many to Afghanistan and Pakistan to join in the Mujahideen in the war against the Soviet invaders of Afghanistan.
But even without its most militant faction, the Moslem Brotherhood continued to inspire. In nearby Gaza of the Palestine Mandate Territory, the Palestinian wing of the Moslem Brotherhood spawned Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah, the Islamic Resistance Movement, better known by its acromym: HAMAS. From its very beginning in 1987, HAMAS has proven to be the most determined Islamist movement inside the Palestinian community, and by far the most successful. Moreover, the strength that has allowed that success is of a kind not only drawn from the support of fellow believers inside Egypt but from a close, supportive relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Weapons and money flowed into HAMAS, and more; the only Palestinian militant group that has even considered implementing the particular version of Islamic Law practiced by the theocrats that run Iran is HAMAS.
So here we have a parallel linkage occurring.
EIJ members are one of the significant elements that make up al-Qaeda and implement their plots: Abdel-Rahman was a key part of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (truck bomb); Al-Zawahiri is one of “a majority” of the members of al-Qaeda’s ruling council drawn from EIJ. In the annals of al-Qaeda, EIJ formally became a part of al-Qaeda in June of 2001. But in the background, back home in Egypt, there is a wide community of support for such endeavors in the well-sown field of the Egyptian under-classes that are the political base of the current incarnation of the Moslem Brotherhood. This is just the sort of prepared ideological base that can be turned to use by active militants, just as it had been throughout the period of “open war” between the EIJ and the Egyptian government (1993~2000).
Yet at the same time, the HAMAS group is a cat’s-paw of Iran in their struggle for dominance over the Middle East. They need constant support and re-arming, and Iran is the primary facilitator for that. But one can not (as some more innocent supporters found out when they tried) simply sail a boat loaded with supplies into the Gaza Strip. The district is under strict Israeli embargo / inspection on three sides, and the Egyptian government makes at least all the right public postures about keeping their Gaza border closed as well. To get anything of value to militants into the Gaza, one has to have a route through Egypt (from somewhere, most often Sudan) leading up to the Sinai, and then access to the HAMAS-controlled smuggling tunnels into the Gaza.
There are a few sources that say the parallel linkage had become unified during the time EIJ was run by al-Zawahiri, with members being sent to Iran for training, and to work and train with Hezbollah, the Iranian front-group in Lebanon…
Oh yes, Hezbollah (Hizub’llah; Party of God), the state-within-a-state opposition to Israel’s existence and primary tool world-wide of Iran’s Pasdaran (Guardians of the Islamic Revolution; commonly abbreviated as IRGC). Now there is a shining example of Shiite extremism forged into a useful weapon for Iranian military and political goals. But such a group couldn’t possibly find any support or assistance within Egypt for its activities, could it?
The government of Egypt certainly acted as if Hezbollah’s agenda had no traction, at least until recently. Well, it seems that it is time to be leaving such denial behind:
April 9th, 2009, Egypt discovered and arrested 15 Hezbollah operatives inside Egypt planning acts of terror against the state and seeing to supplying arms to HAMAS for use against Israel.
April 12th, 2009, the details of the case became clearer and the origin of the threat to the Egyptian government was connected to the growing hostility between Egypt and Iran (over Bahrain’s sovereignty; Lebanon’s political future; and over a host of Arab reactions to recent Iranian provocations).
April 13th, 2009, the sheer size of the Hezbollah operation is unmasked, with Egyptian authorities in pursuit of 13 more Hezbollah operatives in the Sinai.
There is a lesson to be learned here, and it applies not only to the situation in Egypt:
Iran’s Pasdaran will use whatever linkage they can to gain support, where ever they can find the ground prepared.
That means not discounting an active al-Qaeda connection just because the Taliban are historically opposed to Iran. It is provable that Iranian arms are being fed into Afghanistan just as they were (and are, albeit at a lesser rate) into Iraq.
That means remembering the success Iran (via Hezbollah) has had in South America, successfully performing two major bombings in Argentina.
That means being very, very wary of the Tehran-Damascus-Caracas air link and the toleration that is being shown to Hezbollah representatives in Venezuela; the same applies to the outsized “diplomatic” presence in Nicaragua held by the Iranians right now.
If one insists on denying that the Iranians are not intent on using their capabilities to further their campaign of undeclared war, at a time and place of their choosing, then…
Then one day the arrests won’t just be happening in Egypt.
They’ll be happening where you live.
That is, if your police are as fortunate as the Egyptian authorities were this time.
***
End Notes:
All directly relevant End Notes are linked in the text.
General Information on all the Groups, Persons, and Places can be found at Wikipedia. The usual caveat applies to such, however: Check all the sources.
It has been a longstanding matter in Arab Republic of Egypt that the greatest threat always comes from within. Neither Israel’s willingness to fight on Egyptian soil rather than their own, nor Libya’s occasional threats of border warfare are existential threats; the Israelis have no desire to attack the heartland of Egypt, and the Libyans lack the capability. But Egypt is a secular Arab nation, perhaps the definitive example of the Arab Nationalist State, and that has meant that through all the years since the rise of Jamal Abdel Nasser’s seizure of the state and his securing power in the wake of the Suez Incident (1956), there has been a single significant opposition to the power of the state: The Moslem Brotherhood. This Islamist movement has significant strength in other Arab States, but nowhere does it have such deep roots as in Egypt. While the government of Egypt makes some substantial claims that the Moslem Brotherhood participates in militant resistance to the secular state, and they are certainly advocates of such, what they actually provide to the Islamist cause is an ideological base and a large following that has been taught to believe in that thinking.
The government has been more than willing to attribute all manner of plots and affairs to the Moslem Brotherhood, has placed bans on their activities and actively pursued members of the group for crimes real… and perhaps not-so-real. But one thing that was almost insistently claimed was that the activities of such Islamist inside Egypt was an Egyptian problem, caused by and blamed on Egyptians. To consider the possibility of an outside hand influencing things was often dismissed with such canards as “Sunni militants don’t cooperate with Shiite militants”.
Where that all began to break down was when the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) appeared from within the Moslem Brotherhood’s ranks in 1980. This group came to the fore with stunning rapidity and on October 6th, 1981, committed the assassination of President Anwar El Sadat. There are a host of names associated with Khalid Al-Islambouli, the assassin who would be heard of again, elsewhere: Omar Abdel-Rahman wrote the fatwa (clerical justification under Islamic Law) for the assassination; another of the Cairo-based element was Ayman Al-Zawahiri; just to cite examples.
Astoundingly, while the Egyptian government did break the cell and arrest most all of the then-called Tanzim al-Jihad, only 5 members were executed and the bulk of the mid-rank members were released from jail after serving a few years in prison. Those members then went into wide dispersal, many to Afghanistan and Pakistan to join in the Mujahideen in the war against the Soviet invaders of Afghanistan.
But even without its most militant faction, the Moslem Brotherhood continued to inspire. In nearby Gaza of the Palestine Mandate Territory, the Palestinian wing of the Moslem Brotherhood spawned Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah, the Islamic Resistance Movement, better known by its acromym: HAMAS. From its very beginning in 1987, HAMAS has proven to be the most determined Islamist movement inside the Palestinian community, and by far the most successful. Moreover, the strength that has allowed that success is of a kind not only drawn from the support of fellow believers inside Egypt but from a close, supportive relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Weapons and money flowed into HAMAS, and more; the only Palestinian militant group that has even considered implementing the particular version of Islamic Law practiced by the theocrats that run Iran is HAMAS.
So here we have a parallel linkage occurring.
EIJ members are one of the significant elements that make up al-Qaeda and implement their plots: Abdel-Rahman was a key part of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (truck bomb); Al-Zawahiri is one of “a majority” of the members of al-Qaeda’s ruling council drawn from EIJ. In the annals of al-Qaeda, EIJ formally became a part of al-Qaeda in June of 2001. But in the background, back home in Egypt, there is a wide community of support for such endeavors in the well-sown field of the Egyptian under-classes that are the political base of the current incarnation of the Moslem Brotherhood. This is just the sort of prepared ideological base that can be turned to use by active militants, just as it had been throughout the period of “open war” between the EIJ and the Egyptian government (1993~2000).
Yet at the same time, the HAMAS group is a cat’s-paw of Iran in their struggle for dominance over the Middle East. They need constant support and re-arming, and Iran is the primary facilitator for that. But one can not (as some more innocent supporters found out when they tried) simply sail a boat loaded with supplies into the Gaza Strip. The district is under strict Israeli embargo / inspection on three sides, and the Egyptian government makes at least all the right public postures about keeping their Gaza border closed as well. To get anything of value to militants into the Gaza, one has to have a route through Egypt (from somewhere, most often Sudan) leading up to the Sinai, and then access to the HAMAS-controlled smuggling tunnels into the Gaza.
There are a few sources that say the parallel linkage had become unified during the time EIJ was run by al-Zawahiri, with members being sent to Iran for training, and to work and train with Hezbollah, the Iranian front-group in Lebanon…
Oh yes, Hezbollah (Hizub’llah; Party of God), the state-within-a-state opposition to Israel’s existence and primary tool world-wide of Iran’s Pasdaran (Guardians of the Islamic Revolution; commonly abbreviated as IRGC). Now there is a shining example of Shiite extremism forged into a useful weapon for Iranian military and political goals. But such a group couldn’t possibly find any support or assistance within Egypt for its activities, could it?
The government of Egypt certainly acted as if Hezbollah’s agenda had no traction, at least until recently. Well, it seems that it is time to be leaving such denial behind:
April 9th, 2009, Egypt discovered and arrested 15 Hezbollah operatives inside Egypt planning acts of terror against the state and seeing to supplying arms to HAMAS for use against Israel.
April 12th, 2009, the details of the case became clearer and the origin of the threat to the Egyptian government was connected to the growing hostility between Egypt and Iran (over Bahrain’s sovereignty; Lebanon’s political future; and over a host of Arab reactions to recent Iranian provocations).
April 13th, 2009, the sheer size of the Hezbollah operation is unmasked, with Egyptian authorities in pursuit of 13 more Hezbollah operatives in the Sinai.
There is a lesson to be learned here, and it applies not only to the situation in Egypt:
Iran’s Pasdaran will use whatever linkage they can to gain support, where ever they can find the ground prepared.
That means not discounting an active al-Qaeda connection just because the Taliban are historically opposed to Iran. It is provable that Iranian arms are being fed into Afghanistan just as they were (and are, albeit at a lesser rate) into Iraq.
That means remembering the success Iran (via Hezbollah) has had in South America, successfully performing two major bombings in Argentina.
That means being very, very wary of the Tehran-Damascus-Caracas air link and the toleration that is being shown to Hezbollah representatives in Venezuela; the same applies to the outsized “diplomatic” presence in Nicaragua held by the Iranians right now.
If one insists on denying that the Iranians are not intent on using their capabilities to further their campaign of undeclared war, at a time and place of their choosing, then…
Then one day the arrests won’t just be happening in Egypt.
They’ll be happening where you live.
That is, if your police are as fortunate as the Egyptian authorities were this time.
***
End Notes:
All directly relevant End Notes are linked in the text.
General Information on all the Groups, Persons, and Places can be found at Wikipedia. The usual caveat applies to such, however: Check all the sources.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
The Test; UNSC Iran Sanctions Committee -- part 1
This author has called the Japanese role as Chairman of the UNSC Iran Sanctions Committee "a test", and it is in fact testing time for all parties now:
What makes this a particular challenge is that the UNSC Presidency itself is not exactly in sympathetic hands right now... Libya has it for the month.
Iran and Syria have until next week to explain to a United Nations sanctions committee how they were involved with a ship detained off Cyprus in January found to be loaded with explosives believed to be bound for Gaza.
What makes this a particular challenge is that the UNSC Presidency itself is not exactly in sympathetic hands right now... Libya has it for the month.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
