Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, April 23, 2012

Sudanese writer explains exactly why Egypt is doomed

From MEMRI, an Arabic interview with someone who gets it exactly right:

Following are excerpts from an interview with Sudanese writer Al-Hajj Warraq, which aired on CBC 2 TV on April 3, 2012 :
Al-Hajj Warraq : It is very important for [people in] Egypt to understand that democracy is about more than just the ballot box. Democracy is a culture engraved upon the cerebral box before it is the ballot box. One cannot talk about freedom in the absence of free minds. The tragedy of the Arab Spring is that when the tyrannical regimes fell, the fruits were reaped by movements that preach closed-mindedness, rather than free thinking. The outcome will be regimes that are worse than those that were toppled. The so-called Arab Spring countries are heading towards a harsh winter.
[…]
The Sudanese government's advisor on environmental issues a statement that the drinking water in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum is mixed with sewage. People are drinking water mixed with feces. A regime that allows its people to drink water mixed with feces must seek legitimacy in the heavens, rather than on Earth. Responsibility on Earth is costly: You must deal with development, the economy, planning, and so on. However, when you claim to be leading people to Paradise, it costs you nothing.
[…]
When you purport to be speaking in the name of Allah, any opposition becomes opposition to Allah. This is where the danger lies. A religious state necessarily leads – in all cases – to the criminalization of dissenting views, which become heresy.
[…]
Since these movements have a totalitarian view on all aspects of life, they want to dictate how you should conduct politics, what art you should consume, what clothes you should wear, and what theater you should watch. They want to control the human world in its entirety, and therefore, they necessarily lead to the violation of human personal liberties.
In Sudan, we have an agency dedicated to the monitoring of people's wrongdoings. It is called the "Public Order Police." They enter homes, take photos, and spy on people. If you are walking down the street with a woman, they might ask you to present a marriage certificate. This is the extent of their interference in people's lives. They can even deal with the length of schoolgirls' skirts – whether they should be above or below the knee.
Interviewer : Like the Authority for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice?
Al-Hajj Warraq : Exactly. Just like in Saudi Arabia.
[…]
In democracy, there should be some rights and liberties that are not dependent upon the will of the majority. Human rights…
Interviewer The rights that are guaranteed by the constitution.
Al-Hajj Warraq : Exactly. But when you establish a state on a certain religion, people of other religions will necessarily find themselves to be second-class citizens. This is what brought about the partitioning of Sudan. You cannot force a Christian to live in a country that purports to be Islamic, because his liberties will by necessity be curtailed. Could you demand that a Christian Egyptian pay the jizya poll-tax? Would you allow a Christian to become the head of an Islamic state?
Interviewer : The Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis here said that they wouldn't demand the jizya, which belongs to the past…
Al-Hajj Warraq : The question is whether they are doing this as a favor, or whether they contemplated these things anew and decided against the jizya. They try to resolve many issues by tricking people, treating them as fools. It is impossible to resolve this by trickery. If you want to establish a religious state, it must conform to the sacred texts that you claim to abide by. Do these sacred texts require non-Muslims to pay the jizya or not?
[…]
Our own experience shows that these people use democracy as a ladder. They climb this ladder and then throw it away, so that no on else can climb it. They will reshape all the state institutions – the media, the education – and they will even monitor the souls and conscience of people. You will never get the opportunity to vote against them in future elections.
[…]
Ask any reasonable person which is better: the political system in Switzerland, or that of Saudi Arabia, Iran, the Taliban, or Sudan? Would any modern person given the option of living in Switzerland choose to live in Sudan, in Iran, in Saudi Arabia, or with the Taliban?
[…]

I just found a short essay I wrote on the topic in the very early days of this blog. And it is a theme I have revisited often.

Surprise! UN observers aren't stopping Syrian atrocities

Al Arabiya reports:

Syrian forces shelled several neighborhoods in Homs as it continued to violate the shaky ceasefire, Al Arabiya reported citing Syrian activists. The government forces launched a wide scale attack on al-Bukamal neighborhood early Monday, killing four people, the Syrian Shaam News Network reported.

The attack comes one day after the violent military operations carried out by the government forces in the Damascus suburb of Duma and in Deraa on Sunday, which killed at least 22 people, according to the Syrian General Revolution Commission.

Internet video footage that activists said was filmed in Duma on Sunday showed grey smoke rising from buildings and the sound of heavy gunfire in the background. One clip showed soldiers in helmets and bullet-proof vests next to a tank.

The official news agency SANA made no mention of fighting in Duma but said that at least one officer was killed by a bomb that struck a convoy of army officers and cadets in the northern province of Aleppo. Another bomb targeted a freight train transporting flour in Idlib province, it said.

Shaam reported two strong explosions in al-Khaldeya neighborhood on Sunday, despite the presence of the U.N. peace monitors.

A small group of unarmed observers has been operating in Syria for a week, overseeing a 10-day-old truce agreement that has curbed some of the violence but failed to bring a complete halt to 13 months of bloodshed.

In Damascus, Syrian government forces shot at protesters in Nahr Aysha; while two massive demonstrations went out in Kafr Soussa from al-Fateh and Bilal al-Habashy mosques on Sunday night. The two protests later merged together, Al Arabiya reported, citing Syrian activists.

On Sunday a group of monitors visited the central city of Hama and nearby town of Rastan. Internet video footage which activists said was filmed in Rastan showed observers walking through the town accompanied by rebel fighters.

In Hama, activists said soldiers opened fire at protesters right after the U.N. observers left the Arbaeen neighborhood. There were no immediate reports of casualties in the city.

Here's a video of UN observers actually being fired upon in Homs Saturday night according to the uploader.

To no one's surprise except perhaps the clueless UN, these observers are no more effective than the Arab League observers from December and January.

(h/t Yoel)

Backgrounder: The Israeli-Egyptian gas agreement

Is Egypt's refusal to provide natural gas to Israel a violation of Camp David, as some (including me) said initially, or is it just a business dispute, as Israel is spinning it now?

Here's some background from the book "The Political Economy of Transitions to Peace: A Comparative Perspective" by Galia Press-Barnathan:

This problematic interaction between the Egyptian government and the broader public was also evident in the case of the agreement to supply Israel with natural gas, as mentioned earlier. In 2000, the Israeli govermnent decided to allow the national electric company to negotiate with local and foreign suppliers of natural gas. One of the main contestants for this project was a private company called EMG, which was owned by both a senior Egyptian businessman, Hussein Salem, and a prominent Israeli, Yossi Mimen. Israel's agreement with EMG was for the company to supply natural gas to Israel for a period of up to twenty years, the total value of the purchases forecast to be about $3 billion. This agreement faced opposition in both Israel and Egypt.

In Israel, opposition reflected the classic realist concerns regarding the creation of a dangerous dependence on energy supply from a potentially unreliable or adversarial source. Opponents argued that it was doubtful that the Egyptian government would be willing to vouch for the continued supply of natural gas to Israel if political circumstances became difficult. Furthermore, should the supply of gas be disrupted, the damage to Israel would be very high because, unlike oil, gas cannot be stored in reserves.

In stark contrast to the public debate in Israel regarding the gas deal with Egypt, Egyptian government officials consistently denied foreign reports that such a deal was being negotiated. The Egyptian public knew nothing about the negotiations with Israel, which had been going on for several years. The strategic decision to sell natural gas to Israel was made by President Mubarak, who appreciated the lucrative economic dividend that would result from such a deal. Egypt had significant natural gas reserves and wanted to find buyers. However, the only promising market in the region was that of Israel. Once again, economic logic triumphed. While the treaty was conveniently signed by the private gas company, Israel made an effort to upgrade this economic interaction by calling for an official state-level agreement in which the Egyptian government would ensure a continuous supply of gas. Eventually, the Egyptians agreed to sign a vague memorandum of understanding. When the agreement was finally signed, in July 2005, Israeli journalists attending the ceremony reported the great unease that surrounded the event on the Egyptian side. This unease and complex maneuvering was already apparent in 2002, against the backdrop of the second intifada and severe criticism within Egypt of Israeli policy. President Mubarak announced that he would suspend all nondiplomatic relations with Israel. However, this announcement was not expected to hinder the completion of the gas deal with Israel. The government refused to sever all trade ties in practice because there was a real economic stake involved. This stood in sharp contrast to the public mood at the time. Chambers of commerce and trade organizations repeatedly issued statements of a boycott against Israel, but the government was unwilling to intervene. The head of the import sector at the Cairo Chamber of Commerce, Moustafa Zaki, concluded at the time, "It is up to the people. The government will not interfere. Consumers can refuse to purchase Israeli goods. That's the best we can hope for."

More details from IPS from 2005:

According to the agreement signed by Egyptian Minister of Petroleum Sameh Fahmy and Israeli Minister of Infrastructure Binyamin Ben-Eliezer at a ceremony Jun. 30, also attended by Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif, Egypt will supply Israel with the gas for 15 years, by way of a maritime pipeline to the southern Israeli town of Ashkelon.

The deal - expected to generate between two billion and three billion U.S. dollars a year in revenue - is to be cemented by a second, final pact, expected in August. The pipeline is slated to begin delivering gas late in 2006.

Although the deal comes at a time of popular anger over Israeli policies, many financial analysts agree that - from a strictly economic standpoint - the move was a practical one. "Economically, it makes good sense," said Nashwa Saleh, head of research at Cairo-based investment house HC Brokerage. "We have more natural gas than we can consume locally - it's smart to export."

Recent estimates have put Egypt's gas reserves as high as three trillion cubic meters.

Talks between Eastern Mediterranean Gas, a private firm jointly owned by an Egyptian businessman and the Israeli Merhav Group, and the state-run Israel Electric Corporation, which intends to buy the gas, have been ongoing since 2001. But an agreement was delayed several times due to ongoing Israeli-Palestinian violence, which made it politically awkward for Cairo to commit to the sale. Meanwhile, given the political sensitivities involved, authorities remained tight-lipped about the discussions.

So while the agreement was technically between a private Egyptian corporation and a state-run Israeli energy company, it was part of a state-level agreement to supply gas - but it was not from Camp David.

Arrest warrant in Lebanon for giving information about Ron Arad

From Naharnet:

Military Examining Magistrate Imad al-Zain issued an arrest warrant on Monday against a Lebanese citizen on charges of contacting Israel.

G.M. is accused of providing Israel with information on missing Israeli military airman Ron Arad.

Arad, an Israeli air force navigator, went missing after he ejected from an F-4 Phantom fighter-bomber during Lebanon's 1975-90 civil war.

He was allegedly captured by the Shiite movement AMAL, headed by Nabih Berri, now parliament speaker.

Israel engaged in lengthy negotiations for the release of the airman but contact was terminated when the Israeli military bombed the south Lebanon village of Maydoun in 1996.

In January 2006, the head of Hizbullah Sayyed Hassan Nassrallah said Arad was probably dead, even though he had no proof.

As part of the deal, Hizbullah agreed to hand over information on Arad's fate within months. Israel was supposed to obtain the information in exchange for freeing Lebanese Samir Kantar, but the agreement was never finalized.

According to reports, Arad probably died in the mid-1990s in Lebanon.

Abbas refusing to speak to Fayyad

Al Quds al Arabi is reporting that there is a "silent crisis" between PA president Mahmoud Abbas and PA prime minister Salam Fayyad.

Last week, Abbas asked Fayyad to deliver a letter to Binyamin Netanyahu outlining the PLO demands to restart peace talks. Fayyad refused, worried that it would damage his image among the people. He was especially concerned because the letter was to be delivered on Prisoners Day and he did not want to appear to be contacting Israel on such a day.

In general, the job of PA prime minister is only concerned with internal matters anyway, and is not an appropriate position to be used for foreign relations - which is the PLO's domain.

According to one report, Fayyad told Abbas that he was not his "mailman."

In the end, the letter was delivered by Saeb Erekat.

Now, Abbas is refusing to speak with Fayyad. He is not answering his calls. Sources say that Fayyad's refusal "crossed all red lines' and their relationship is now in a "deep crisis."

Fatah leaders, who never liked Fayyad, are also pressuring Abbas to use this as a reason to get rid of him.

"Land of Promise" 1924 silent film about Zionist pioneers

The second reel is missing, but it is still over 40 minutes of amazing footage.

100% hasbara.

And 100% true, as hasbara is supposed to be.

An "expert" and a real expert on Iran's anti-nuclear fatwa

A couple of days ago I noted that MEMRI stated that there was no written fatwa by Iran's Supreme Leader Khamanei forbidding nuclear weapons, and MEMRI used that as evidence that the entire fatwa was a myth.

Juan Cole, who has been trying his hardest to pretend that Iran has no nuclear weapons program despite all evidence of how they are hiding both the development of nuclear weapons and the development of rockets that could deliver them, responded, saying that

A fatwa is not like an American law that has to be published in the Congressional Record and in official law books. It is just the conclusion to which a cleric’s reasoning leads him, and which he makes known, even in a letter. In Shiite Islam, laypersons who follow a particular ayatollah are bound by his fatwas. When an ayatollah such as Khamenei delivers oral remarks in public, these have the force of a fatwa and are accepted as such by his followers. That is, Khamenei’s recent statement forbidding nuclear weapons in a speech is in fact a fatwa.

I am no expert in Shiite jurisprudence, so although this seemed strange - that a fatwa could be issued without the legal logic behind it - I don't know enough to argue.

And upon further research it looks like Cole is right in his definition. I found a fascinating paper on this very topic of Khamanei's nuclear fatwa, written by Mehdi Khalaji. Khalaji is a true expert in Shiite law, having studied Shiite theology and jurisprudence for fourteen years in the seminaries of Qom and he further studied the topic in Europe. If he and Cole disagree on the topic, there is no question that Khalaji knows infinitely more. In this case, he agrees with Cole that Khamanei's verbal nuclear fatwa is a real fatwa:

[E]ven though Ayatollah Khamenei has produced no written record on the religious prohibitions pertaining to nuclear weapons, his verbal statements on the subject are considered his religious opinions, or fatwas, and therefore binding on believers.

However, there is a lot more to this than meets the eye. Khalaji goes into great detail on how fatwas can and are regularly changed by the person who issued them, as well as about Taqiyya, which Cole downplays. He also talks about the interplay of politics and Islamic law in Iran. He describes how the Ayatollah Khomeini felt that Islamic law was not mature enough to run a modern government, and that the running of the government is actually more important that Islamic law! In Khomeini's own words:

The government can unilaterally abrogate any religious agreement made by it with the people if it believes that the agreement is against the interests of the country and Islam. The government can prevent any Islamic law—whether related to rituals or not— from being implemented if it sees its implementation as harmful to the interests of Islam.

Khalaji concludes:

In sum, since the ruling jurist has absolute authority and exclusive control in defining regime expediency, he can suspend all Islamic and constitutional laws whenever he chooses to do so. This means that laws have no independent authority; they depend entirely on the Supreme Leader’s validation. In such a system, politics never become normalized through the stable functioning of state institutions. Instead, every situation has the potential to be interpreted as extraordinary and manipulated to the liking of the Supreme Leader, possibly against the decisions of parliament, the president, and the judiciary. Thus what might be called the “politics of the extraordinary” concentrates enormous power in the hands of the ruling jurist and defines the essence of the Islamic Republic.

Supreme Leader Khamenei has stated that the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam. But his recent language on the subject has become more equivocal, emphasizing only the prohibition on their use and not on their production or stockpiling. And should the needs of the Islamic Republic or the Muslim umma change, requiring the use of nuclear weapons, the Supreme Leader could just as well alter his position in response. This means that, ultimately, the Islamic Republic is unconstrained— even by religious doctrine—as it moves toward the possible production and storing of nuclear weapons.

In principle, at least, the emergence of maslaha or raison d’état in the ideology of the Islamic Republic represented a step forward in recognizing the realities of running a modern state. The principle might have been channeled toward allowing the parliament and president to establish a shared understanding of the “national interest” that could strengthen those institutions and foster nascent democratic processes. In practice, however, maslaha has become a means of freeing the political system from the hold of Islamic law, further undermining Iran’s democratic institutions and consolidating the Supreme Leader’s control over state politics, in effect laying the foundation for a clerical/military dictatorship in Iran. Iranian nuclear decisionmaking, therefore, bears the significant imprint of one man’s personality and politics—an imprint that may be unaffected by the will of other men, the decisions of other institutions, or, most ironically, the legal scruples or moral dictates of his own religion.

(Maslaha sounds a little like the Jewish concept of hora'at sha'ah, but the latter is meant to be used in only truly extraordinary and unique circumstances, while Maslaha seems to be much broader and less constricted in how it is used.)

What it boils down to is that Khamanei truly is the Supreme Leader, and he can do whatever he wants - suspend Islamic law, change his mind, lie, bypass all government institutions - if he believes that it is necessary to help run the country.

Which means that his fatwa, while apparently legitimate, is literally meaningless. There is literally nothing that binds him to even his own legal rulings. Actions are the only way that he can be judged, because he has no moral reason to keep his word.

Hit job on Israel anticipated on "60 Minutes" tonight

From CBS' preview of tonight's 60 Minutes:

Christians of the Holy Land - Bob Simon reports on the slow exodus from the Holy Land of Palestinian Christians, who say life in the middle of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become too difficult. Harry Radliffe is the producer.

It looks like this is going to be another of those typical news articles on how horribly Israel treats Christians in the territories, the type that usually crop up every Christmas.

The meme goes like this: Christians are leaving Palestinian territories, and this has accelerated since the second intifada, so it must be Israel's fault. In Bethlehem, where they used to be the majority, they can no longer maintain their businesses because of stifling Israeli restrictions.

What the meme doesn't explain is that the Muslim population of Bethlehem has actually increased in the same time period, as has the total population of Bethlehem. So how can Israeli policies only be affecting Christians and not their Muslim neighbors who also have businesses and family there? (I looked at the demographic issue in Bethlehem in 2007.)

In reality, it is the Muslims who are forcing the Christians out, exactly as they are in Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and every other Middle East country - except for Israel. Here are some links to articles over the years that show this to be true:

In 2005, Muslims instigated a pogrom against the Christian village of Taybeh over rumors of an affair beteeen a Christian man and a Muslim woman. (The woman was murdered by her own family.)

In early 2007, many Christians in Bethlehem started talking openly about how they are persecuted by their Muslim neighbors - including how the Muslims were stealing their land.

Similarly, it is notable that in 1967, Fatah - the leading political party of the PA - directly threatened Christian pilgrims to Bethlehem.

This 2008 article goes into great detail of the Muslim persecution of Christians in the territories.

In Gaza, the few remaining Christians are keeping a low profile and hoping that Hamas doesn't notice them.

Michael Oren's article this past Easter is a must-read.

Bethlehem is not the only city where Muslims have forced out the Christian majority. Ramallah was also once a Christian town, and now there are virtually none left.

Chances are, 60 Minutes tonight will tell you none of this.

UPDATE: The transcript is here, video here. It sort of went nowhere.

Egypt says it is ending natural gas deal with Israel

From Al Arabiya/Reuters

Egypt has notified Israel that it is “terminating” a controversial gas supply deal, Ampal-American Israel Corporation, which owns a stake in a company that exports natural gas from Egypt to Israel, said on Sunday.

Ampal said that its international partners in Egypt-Israel gas deal are considering legal options against Egypt, according to Reuters.

Ampal issued a press release calling this termination "unlawful":

Ampal-American Israel Corporation AMPL, a holding company in the business of acquiring and managing interests in various businesses, announced today that it has been advised by East Mediterranean Gas Co. ("EMG"), in which Ampal has a 12.5% interest, that Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation ("EGPC") and the Egyptian Natural Gas Holding Company ("EGAS") notified EMG that they were terminating the Gas Supply and Purchase Agreement (the "Source GSPA") between the parties. EMG considers the termination attempt unlawful and in bad faith, and consequently demanded its withdrawal. EMG, Ampal, and EMG's other international shareholders are considering their options and legal remedies as well as approaching the various Governments.

As previously disclosed, EMG initiated arbitration against EGPC and EGAS in October 2011 due to EGPC and EGAS's long-standing failure to supply the gas quantities owed under the Source GSPA. EMG is seeking compensation from EGPC and EGAS for damages resulting from their contractual breaches. EMG already has further requested that an arbitral tribunal issue an order that EGPC/EGAS perform their obligations under the Source GSPA and rule that EGPC and EGAS are not entitled to terminate the agreement. The arbitration is ongoing. In addition, as previously disclosed, Ampal and certain other international shareholders of EMG have initiated the process of submitting claims against the Government of Egypt under various bilateral treaties for the protection of investments.

Last year Israel's National Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau said that the gas agreement with Egypt is the most important outcome of the Camp David Accords.

But, hey, how important is a signed agreement, anyway? It's not like the Arab side feels that they have to obey agreements with the Zionist entity, do they?

The US reaction to this flagrant dismissal of one of the key components of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty will be important. Remember, Israel gave up some valuable oil fields in the Sinai as part of the Camp David accords.

Not important at all but slightly interesting would be Jimmy Carter's reaction, since he takes all credit for Camp David to begin with. Will his hate for Israel trump his belief in the agreement?

Links and snippets

Secret freedom at Tel Aviv’s ‘Palestinian Queer Party’

One of the drag queens yelled at me to stop photographing — it could be dangerous for them if someone sees the pictures, I was told, because many of those at the party are still in the closet.

HPMonitor compares the number of comments for protester beatup stories.

Protester Beatdown Roundup
It's a little depressing how many articles you find when you enter "protester beaten" into the Huffington Post's search engine.Ready to take a little trip down memory lane?

Iran a belligerent occupier!!

Iran Picks Awkward Time to Escalate Gulf Tensions

“The UAE maintains that Iran occupied the three islands in November 1971 in the cover of the night during the short window between the British withdrawal from the Trucial States and the announcement of the UAE as a federation of these states. The UAE archives carry pre-invasion photos of the islands with the flag of the UAE emirate of Sharjah hoisted.

“Throughout the years the UAE has called upon Iran to either resolve the dispute through direct negotiations or through the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Iran continuously maintains that, "according to international documents and historical background, there is no doubt about Iranian ownership of the three islands" adding that the ICJ has "no jurisdiction" over the islands.”

The Real Iron Wall, where the myths of Jabotinsky are debunked.

A Druze is appointed Israel's ambassador to New Zealand.

(h/t Ian, Yoel)

Jordanian director criticizes Saudi network for showing "The Pianist"

Saudi Arabia's MBC2 decided to show the Oscar winning Holocaust drama, "The Pianist," over the weekend.

And Jordan's Ammon News is very upset about it.

TV director and critic Amer Gharaibeh criticized the channel, saying that it is promoting a Jewish agenda and inaccurately describing the Holocaust. He is particularly upset that the film empathizes with the Jews being slaughtered, and makes the viewers do so as well - obviously a terrible crime to this critic.

Scenes where German soldiers wantonly shoot Jews are described by this reviewer as utterly unrealistic and unnecessary.

Gharaibeh complains that the film "emotionally appeals to the world about Jews."

And for what purpose? As he writes, "Exposure to films like this and others cause harm to the Arab and Islamic world and promotes other elements."

Palestine Times has an article quoting a Professor Abdul Sattar Qassem as warning Palestinian Arab universities against accepting money from USAID - because it comes with strings attached.

USAID spends millions of dollars to promote excellence in teaching and other programs at Palestinian Arab universities. But Qassem sees a dark side:

America requires the recipients of aid not to have been previously arrested by the Zionist occupation, and not to be affiliated with, Palestinian resistance groups. The aid is meant to favor negotiations with the Zionists, and the search for a peaceful solution; it is in favor of two-state solution; and even more dangerous it supports normalization with the Zionists, [for example] with scientific cooperation...the universities that [receive aid from the] U.S. must normalize relations with the Zionist entity, and participate in many activities with the Zionist universities and academics.

USAID funds dozens of projects in the territories, at a cost of some $200 million a year.

Last year a PalArab newspaper accused USAID of being a spy agency and accused it of similar crimes that Professor Qassem is accusing it of, even saying that the only people who receive USAID funding after the terrorists are weeded out are those who have abandoned their national heritage.