Doc's Talk: Sunni Realignments

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Sunni Realignments

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi
The American Spectator
http://www.meforum.org/3128/sunni-realignments

Despite threats from Iran to withdraw financial aid and training for militants, Hamas has now reportedly ordered the majority of its staff in Damascus to evacuate the organization's headquarters by next week, aiming to leave behind only a "nominal presence" in Syria, which has hosted Hamas since the group was expelled from Jordan in the late 1990s. This latest move from Hamas comes amid a gradual divestment of Syrian assets over the past few months.

More importantly, Hamas has undertaken the decision to evacuate Syria under pressure from Turkey and Qatar, both of which are leading support for the Syrian National Council (SNC) that is currently dominated by Sunni Islamists. Meanwhile, Turkey is helping to smuggle arms to the Free Syrian Army, whereas Qatar was the first nation in the Gulf area to close its embassy in Damascus back in July, and is likewise reportedly supplying weapons to Syrian rebels. lthough Saudi Arabia and other Arab League members (except Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon) have joined in the condemnation of Assad's conduct and Syria's membership in the Arab League has accordingly been suspended, Qatar's stance stands out amongst Arab states as far more proactive and much more along the lines of present Turkish policy towards Syria.

Of course, Qatar has further been influential in drawing Arab public attention to Assad's crackdown on protesters in Syria via al-Jazeera broadcasts, with well-known Islamist cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who has his own show on the channel, calling on Assad to step down because he was supposedly being "held prisoner by his entourage and the [Alawite] sect."

We find a similar active approach on the part of Turkey and Qatar regarding Libya, albeit differing to a certain degree. The two countries backed the anti-Gaddafi forces during the civil war. Turkey played an important part in enforcing an arms embargo on ports controlled by the Gaddafi forces, as well as in implementing the no-fly zone.

While Qatar similarly participated in enforcing the no-fly zone, the Gulf state also sent troops as military advisors for rebel forces, and frequently held meetings with officials from the National Transitional Council (NTC). Again, there is a contrast with the more reserved approach of Saudi Arabia and most other Arab League states, although it should be pointed out that the United Arab Emirates deployed a dozen aircraft to assist in the NATO-led mission against Gaddafi's regime.

In the aftermath of the overthrow of Gaddafi, Turkey and Qatar have also attempted to increase their influence in Libya, but Turkey's methods have been more subtle and welcomed. Qatar has been circumventing the NTC to provide support for Islamist militias that are operating independently of the NTC's control. Hence, the NTC has rebuked Qatar for excessive interference in internal affairs on more than one occasion.

On the other hand, Turkey has sought to gain a foothold in Libya by cultivating cultural and educational ties for the moment. Thus, Turkey has offered to renovate and restore a prominent Ottoman-era mosque in Libya. The interim Libyan government is also seeking Turkish help to train schoolteachers and rewrite school textbooks to portray Ottoman Islamic rule over the area in a positive light. Accordingly, the Minister of Education Suleiman Sahili declared in a recent interview, "We want to see Turkey on our soil once more."

Incidentally, Today's Zaman (the English-language Turkish daily), which noted Turkey's initiative to renovate and restore an Ottoman-era mosque in Libya, also reported on a request from Gaza to the Turkish government for assistance in reconstructing several mosques. That Qatar and Turkey share sympathy for Hamas is undeniable. The joint pressure on Hamas to evacuate Syria has already been noted.

Going further back, the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan has defended Hamas from charges of being a terrorist organization, and is allegedly planning to provide $300 million for the group, while Qatar attempted to hold a summit in Doha in the immediate aftermath of Operation Cast Lead in support of Hamas.

Furthermore, al-Jazeera tried to undermine the Palestinian Authority (PA) and bolster Hamas by releasing the "Palestine Papers," which, on a side note, exposed the inconsistency of the PA's public and private stances regarding negotiations with Israel.

The Palestine Papers showed that in private PA officials appeared to be willing to discuss compromises on matters like the "right of return," but when this detail was made public, the PA angrily denied that such discussions had taken place. The affair thus illustrated how the PA is still failing to make an active effort to cultivate an attitude of reconciliation among the Palestinian population at large by means of media and education.

In any case, the emerging picture appears to be one of a new Sunni bloc led by Qatar and Turkey, currently including Hamas as a member. It is evident that this bloc is in opposition to the Iranian-led "resistance" axis that includes Syria and Hezbollah. More of a gray area is how this bloc will relate to Saudi Arabia, which has since Gaddafi's fall followed a "hands-off" policy towards Libya and is, as we have seen, more reserved in its approach towards Syria.

On three counts, the interests of this bloc and those of Saudi Arabia have overlapped. First, there is the common opposition to Iran. Second, Qatar and Saudi Arabia have deployed troops in Bahrain to suppress predominantly Shi'a protests against the Sunni minority regime, while Turkey (like al-Jazeera's Arabic channel) has more or less kept a diplomatic silence on the issue. Third, in eastern Saudi Arabia, where security forces have cracked down on Shi'a protests, Turkey and Qatar have refrained from condemnation, and al-Jazeera's coverage is clearly biased against the demonstrations. In both cases, the protests have been portrayed as Iranian plots to stir up trouble.

Thus, the relationship between Saudi Arabia and this Turkey-Qatar bloc could be described as ambivalent at present.

Observers would therefore do well to watch closely the evolving situation in Egypt. With Islamists on the rise in that country, it is possible that new tensions will emerge between Saudi Arabia and the Turkey-Qatar bloc, especially since the former has for a long time supported the status-quo of military rule that existed under Hosni Mubarak, who maintained very close ties with the Saudis, while Qatar and Turkey might throw their weight behind a dismantling of military rule and a transition to a government potentially dominated by Islamists.

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi is a student at Brasenose College, Oxford University, and an intern at the Middle East Forum.

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