Doc's Talk: Another summit failure exemplifies an Arab world in crisis

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Another summit failure exemplifies an Arab world in crisis

ZVI MAZEL

Regional states, which unite readily whenever Israel is the issue, can seldom do so regarding their own internal affairs.

An extraordinary summit of the leaders of the Arab world was held on October 9 in the Libyan city of Syrte. It had been convened in accordance with the decision taken at the regular yearly summit in March. And the press – international and Israeli alike – did not have much to say about it. Most press attention had been diverted to another meeting, that of the Arab League monitoring committee. Would it endorse the position of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who had stated that direct talks with Israel were contingent on the continuing building freeze in the settlements? It did and the council of Arab foreign ministers who met in Syrte to determine the upcoming summit’s program followed suit. However the council gave the US a month to find a solution enabling the pursuit of the talks.

Arab states that unite readily whenever Israel is the issue can seldom do so regarding their own internal affairs. The outcome of the Syrte summit is yet another powerful reminder of the continuing failure of these states to tackle their more pressing political and economic problems. Two vexing issues on which no consensus had been found at the regular summit were on the agenda.

PRIOR TO THE MARCH summit, which was also held in Syrte, the host country and chair, and Yemen, drafted a document calling on member states to upgrade the relevant institutions of the Arab League by amending its charter to ensure better coordination in dealing with common issues.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was in favor and even suggested changing the name of the League of Arab States (usually referred to as the Arab League) to the Union of Arab States.

Amr Mussa, whose term of office as head of the Arab League ends next year, gave his wholehearted approval to a move which would give him an opportunity to seek a new mandate in what would be a new organization. It was also Mussa who presented the second document, which deals with setting up a suitable framework for working with neighboring states such as Iran and Turkey. Here again was a bid to boost his standing and that of the Arab League, which had been badly eroded by their failure to contribute to the development of member states.

Despite intense media interest, Arab leaders demonstrated once again how reluctant they were to move forward. Internal strife and opposing views among summit members led to these issues being shelved until an extraordinary summit could discuss them in depth.

Observers had little expectations of seeing any significant progress on such important issues at the extraordinary summit. They had not counted on the combined efforts of Libyan President Muammar Gadaffi and of Mussa, who brought amended drafts of their proposals and tried to pressure participants into accepting them.

Following intense discussions in meetings which were closed to the public, the first proposal was endorsed and the secretariat of the Arab League was asked to prepare a definitive text which would be presented to the next regular yearly summit scheduled to be held next March in Iraq. (The venue is still in dispute, several states being reluctant to have the meeting there). Regarding the second proposal, it was decided to create a special committee headed by Gadaffi to further examine the issue.

In other words, the final decision was postponed again, till the next summit. Some progress had allegedly been made on the first proposal, which was accepted in principle, though some states, such as Saudi Arabia, were unhappy about it.

A few days after the Syrte summit ended, a number of sources leaked to the Egyptian daily Al-Masri al-Yom and to the Saudi daily published in London A-Sharq al-Awsat details from the closed meetings.

It turned out that seven countries led by Saudi Arabia were against changing the mandate of the Arab League; they argued that, in its present form, it provided the organization with all the tools it needed to promote and develop cooperation between member states.

The seven countries notified the secretariat of the Arab League that they did not agree to the minutes of the meeting communicated by Mussa to member states. Later, the official Saudi representation to the Arab League in Cairo published the memorandum it had sent on that subject; the Saudi information minister reiterated that there was no need to change the existing institutions, only to strengthen them through measures decided by consensus among Arab states.

This led to considerable agitation. In a interview with A-Sharq al-Awsat, Mussa tried to defuse the issue by saying that the recommendations in his proposal included “only” having two summit meetings a year instead of one and that in any case all member states would have their say at the next summit.

The Arab League was created in Cairo on March 22, 1945. The UK strongly supported the move and the league included the countries which were independent at the time – Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Transjordan (the name was changed to Jordan in 1949), Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen. The Emirates and North African countries joined later when they became independent.

Changing the charter of the league is not an easy task, not to be achieved by a sneak attack such as was carried by Libya and by Mussa. It requires discussions in depth, and the consensus of all members, particularly founding members. Furthermore there is nothing in the proposed changes which can improve the disastrous political and economic situation of Arab states or bring about a rapprochement between feuding members.

WHAT ARAB countries need right now is determination and courage. Middle Eastern and North African Arab countries are today the least developed part of the world after African and Sahel countries. Yet their combined population is more than 350 million, they have immense natural resources including natural gas and oil, minerals and vast territories where they could develop advanced agriculture, alternative sources of energy and modern cities. However all – with the exception of Lebanon – have dictatorial regimes with varying degrees of corruption, and cannot therefore advance toward democracy and respect of human rights, let alone economic progress and education.

Tribal and ethnic conflicts combined with the rise of radical Islam have already brought the collapse of Somalia, while Sudan, Iraq and Yemen are perilously close to the same situation. Other states such as Saudi Arabia are threatened and must depend on their armies to survive. Iran’s ceaseless efforts to extend its influence and its steady progress toward the manufacturing of nuclear weapons are a direct threat to Persian Gulf countries. Through its proxies Hamas and Hizbullah, Iran is pushing its tentacles deep into the Middle East, as can be seen in Lebanon, Egypt and in the West Bank.

On the political front, pragmatic and extremist Arab nations are in a state of open confrontation. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Morocco are facing Syria – which is assisting Iran and supports Hizbullah while meddling in Lebanese affairs. This has a destabilizing effect on the region. Qatar leans toward Iran; Algeria, where the civil war is yet to be subdued, is violently against Israel and against the West. One could go on to further expose the fallacy of the so called “union” on all issues – except, of course, Israel.

Regarding the second proposal, setting up a suitable framework for cooperation with neighboring countries such as Iran and Turkey, it is quite obvious that most member states are against it. They are afraid of Iranian subversive activities and are only too well aware that there can be no dialogue with that country, only submission. Gadaffi will doubtless try to draft a seemingly acceptable document for the next summit, but the result is not in doubt.

Arab countries enjoy normal relations with Turkey, though they are uneasy with the deepening of the Islamic influence and the references to a renewal of the caliphate; they have not forgotten that Turkey is the heir of the Ottoman Empire which once ruled them.

Thus the concerted attempts by Gadaffi and Mussa to change the charter of the Arab League to bring about greater cooperation to tackle the difficult situation of the Arab states seem divorced from reality.

Much more is needed to see a change for the better in the Middle East. However it seems that no one wants to admit it. Arab states are still in denial and as long as they refuse to deal with the very real issues confronting them, things can only get worse. Summit meetings which won’t take the bull by his horns are doomed to fail and to plunge the Arab world deeper into the abyss.

The writer is a former ambassador to Egypt, Romania and Sweden and a fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk