State of Alert in Egypt after Breach at Israeli Embassy

Posted on 09/10/2011 by Juan

The assault on the Israeli embassy in Cairo on Friday represented a dangerous escalation of tensions between the protesters and the transitional regime. The military declared a “state of alert” and cancelled the vacations of all the police. I don’t think the incident seriously threatens Egyptian relations with Israel, though the Israeli ambassador and his family were constrained to leave the country. Those relations are still in the hands of the military and the cabinet of PM Essam Sharaf, who are committed to the Camp David peace treaty. Rather, I think the focus on the Israeli embassy is a sign of tension within Egyptian politics.

A terrorist attack by Palestinian radicals on Israeli tourists at Eilat a couple of weeks ago, which killed 8 civilians, elicited an Israeli response that led to the deaths of about 15 Palestinians. Five Egyptian border guards (i.e. troops) were caught in the crossfire, provoking intense anger in Cairo. (If Mexican troops inadvertently killed 5 US border guards, you can imagine the emotional meltdown over at Fox Cable News). This Israeli response was nevertheless far more restrained than would once have been the case, and it fell short of what the hawkish foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman demanded. But the new, uncertain atmosphere in Egypt induced caution in Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu. And, again uncharacteristically, Israel’s far right government expressed regret for the Egyptian deaths, though it stopped short of a real apology.

The Egyptian New Left came back out to Tahrir Square on Friday in the tens of thousands. They are demanding that the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, the de facto rulers of the country despite the appointment of a civilian prime minister and cabinet, specify more firmly when exactly parliamentary elections will be held and a hand-over of power from the military to civilians will take place.

The protesters were not joined by the Muslim Brotherhood or other Muslim political groups, who have a tacit alliance with the military and who calculate that public patience with further demonstrations has worn thin. The Muslim groups are gearing up for canvassing and campaigning in the forthcoming elections, while I fear the New Left is still stuck in a rut of bringing out demonstrators on Fridays.

I spent a lot of time in Tahrir Square this summer, and one of the demands you saw most prominently on banners was that civilians cease being tried in military courts. Egypt’s civil judiciary is relatively professional and upright, and the Mubarak regime was frustrated that it kept insisting on proper procedure, so Mubarak began trying regime opponents in military courts, which have less respect for freedom of speech and are willing to convict people for even thinking about dissident actions. Reformers maintain that since the February revolution, 12,000 civilians have been arrested and remanded for trial in the military courts.

In fact, the military went so far as to arrest Asma Mahfouz, a young woman who is a leader of the April 6 movement and whose Youtube video calling for the January 25 demonstrations in Tahrir Square last winter had gone viral and played an important role in kicking off the revolution. Ms. Mahfouz is among those who have called for the military to go back to the barracks, and she was arrested in August. She was, however, released soon thereafter.

From the point of view of the young pro-labor, pro-democracy New Left, the revolution against Hosni Mubarak is only half-finished, since the government is still full of officials from the old regime, many police and security personnel with blood on their hands have not been tried, and the country is being ruled by a military junta.

The country’s military leader, Air Marshall Hussein Tantawi, replied to these demands by charging the April 6 movement with receiving foreign funds, implying that they are American agents. (“Democracy promotion” funds from the US Agency for International Development have been viewed with suspicion in Egypt, though there is no evidence that April 6 was a recipient). The young dissidents point out with some mirth that the Egyptian military receives $1.5 billion a year from the United States in aid, so who is the recipient of foreign funds here?

Most of the Egyptian New Left youth leaders have been wise about leaving Israel and Palestine out of their discourse, since Mubarak had always used that issue to sidestep domestic concerns. Moreover, for the Egyptian transition to democracy to succeed, it is important that the US and Europe be supportive.

But a small section of the demonstrators who came out on Friday appear to believe that the Egyptian army’s relationship with Israel is an Achilles’ heel that can be used as a wedge issue to delegitimate the SCAF. So a few hundred of the protesters at Tahrir marched the 2 miles to northern Giza to demonstrate in front of the Israeli embassy. But then about 30 of them started tearing down its security wall and late Friday night breached the front door, reaching a waiting room and throwing Hebrew literature out of the window.

The Egyptian army was slow to intervene, but eventually chased the demonstrators away. Some 450 persons were wounded, and the scene in front of the embassy looked like a war zone, with cars set on fire.

The Egyptian military’s slowness to respond is suspicious. Perhaps they thought the blast wall they built would not be so easy to breach. But it is also possible that the SCAF calculated that such an incident will actually strengthen the hand of the military and reduce Western pressure to democratize more quickly and thoroughly, as well as creating an image of the protesters as violent hooligans endangering Egypt’s peace with its neighbors.

In either case, the story is not the Israeli embassy, which is just the football. The story is who won a goal on Friday. Did the protesters tag the military as in bed with the Israelis and Americans and so emblematic of the bad old Mubarak days? Or did the military cleverly give this small group of protesters enough rope to hang themselves and to discredit the youth protesters in general?

0 Retweet 7 Share 12 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Egypt | Leave a Comment

A tale of two Afghan Leaders, before and after 9/11

Posted on 09/09/2011 by Juan

Ten years ago, a horrific suicide bombing carried out by Algerian al-Qaeda operatives posing as journalists snuffed out the life of Ahmad Shah Massoud, the great Afghan Mujahidin leader and among the few Afghans who could have hoped to unite the country against the Taliban. Massoud told journalist Sebastian Junger that he opposed the religious totalitarianism of the Taliban just as he opposed the ideological totalitarianism of the Soviets, and wanted to work for an Afghanistan, and a world, that was free. Since that act of horror, Afghanistan itself has gradually fallen back into ethnic and religious warfare, which US and NATO troops either inadvertently fanned or at the least proved unable to halt.

The Bonn conference of late 2001 ensconced Hamid Karzai in the interim presidency of Afghanistan. Karzai, from Uruzgan, was one of a very few credible leaders of Pashtun background who had neither been Taliban nor absolutely hated Pakistan. He was acceptable to the Northern Alliance, the anti-Taliban coalition that had held out in the northeast of the country, comprising fighters from the Tajik, Hazara, and Uzbek ethnic groups. (Tajiks are Dari Persian-speaking Sunnis, Hazaras are Persian-speaking Shiites, and Uzbeks are Turkic-speaking Sunnis with a relatively secular outlook).

This tale of two leaders– the heroic, beloved and upright Ahmad Shah Massoud, and the erratic, paranoid and increasingly power-hungry Karzai — is the story of Afghan political decline. Karzai won a relatively free and fair presidential campaign in 2004. But his run for the presidency in 2009 was marred by allegations of widespread ballot-stuffing.

At the same time, scandals broke around him, as his brothers or high officials were mired in the Da Kabul Bank scandal. The bank appears to have been looted by its own investors and money used to by villas in Dubai. Norway, along with some internaional hosts, has suspended aid to Afghanistan until the mystery of the Bank’s missing funds is resolved.

Not only were there charges of widespread irregularities in the 2009 presidential election, but the parliamentary elections of a year ago were likewise attended with accusations of ballot fraud. At length, a special presidential tribunal on the elections disqualified 62 of the members of parliament elected in 2010. The ruling was viewed with suspicion, since these 62 were political opponents of Karzai, so in essence he was attempting to turn out his opposition.

The ruling so infuriated parliament that it opened discussions on whether to impeach Karzai.

A more independent body, the Independent Election Commission, in contrast, said that only nine MPS needed step down. Karzai attempted to mediate between the two rulings by presidential decree, but the decree issued was so vague and ambiguous that no one could understand what he was driving at. The controversy has paralyzed the workings of parliament, and yesterday provoked a small demonstration of some 600 in downtown Kabul. They chanted not only against Karzai but against the US and NATO.

As a result of these financial and electoral scandals, Karzai increasingly lacks legitimacy. This outcome is important because the new Afghan army being trained by NATO can only hope to succeed in counter-insurgency if its troops and officers believe in the government for which they are fighting. There isn’t good evidence as yet for the army being able to fight large-scale engagements independently, or for its loyalty to Karzai or the (disputed) parliament.

Usama Bin Laden knew what he was doing when he knocked off Ahmad Shah Massoud on the eve of 9/11. He deprived the anti-Taliban Afghans of a unifying, competent figure. The old terrorist’s legacy to Afghanistan was one of continued instability.

0 Retweet 7 Share 8 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Afghanistan | 7 Comments

Sadrists to Demonstrate in Baghdad against US Troops Remaining

Posted on 09/08/2011 by Juan

One of the major consequences of the September 11 attacks ten years ago was that members of the Bush administration decided to “take advantage” of the resulting passions to pursue their long-planned vendetta against the government of Saddam Hussein. There followed the greatest US foreign policy disaster since the British occupied Washington, DC and burned the White House in 1814. I opposed the Bush invasion and occupation, since it violated the UN Charter, and I warned that “I have a bad feeling about this,” quoting Harrison Ford’s character in Star Wars. I warned that it would be seen as neo-imperialism, would revivify al-Qaeda, would throw the Shiites into the arms of Iran and would anger Turkey with regard to the Kurdistan Regional Government. Now, the US has an opportunity finally to extricate itself from the nightmare, but powerful forces in Washington are trying to ensure that the US keeps a significant troop presence in Iraq.

The number of US troops there is likely to be so small, however, that we risk a major attack on them, which could pull the US right back into Iraq. The only way to avoid this scenario is to get out altogether.

The Muqtada al-Sadr nativist Shiite movement in Iraq is planning a huge demonstration in downtown Baghdad on Friday, in favor of three demands. The first is that the Iraqi government announce an immediate jobs program that would put 50,000 Iraqis to work, from all ethnicities and religious groups. The second is that the Iraqi government give each Iraqi a royalty payment on Iraqi oil profits (ironically a suggestion once made by US viceroy in Iraq, Paul “Jerry” Bremer and modeled on a program in Alaska). The third is that there be no US troops at all in Iraq by the end of the year or earlier.

The Sadrists not only have a proven ability to put a lot of people in the streets, but their some 40 seats in parliament are key to the governing coalition of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, so that he ignores them to his peril. The Iraqi constitution allows for parliament to call for a vote of no confidence if 50 MPs sign off on it, and rivals of al-Maliki such as Ayad Allawi have been calling for early elections.

The Sadrists’ Tahrir-style demonstration is intended to forestall any backpedaling by the Iraqi government on the issue of keeping US troops in the country after the end of this year.

It is therefore a special provocation that the US State Department now uses the phrase “formal negotiations” for its discussions with the Iraqi government of al-Maliki about the possibility of some 3000 US troops remaining in Iraq after December 31. Previously the terminology was simply “informal discussions.” But US ambassador Jim Jeffrey now feels that there is enough of a consensus among the Iraqi political leadership on the desirability of some US troops remaining that it is legitimate to talk about negotiations.

This terminological upgrade follows on a controversy in Washington that broke out Tuesday when Fox Cable News reported that President Obama had over-ruled his generals and opted for keeping only 3000 US troops in Iraq after December 31.

The report brought howls of outrage from Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who say they want to keep 25,000 troops in Iraq. I am not sure why McCain and Graham believe that this decision is their own. The only legal document governing this issue is a Status of Forces Agreement signed by the Iraqi parliament and the Bush White House in late 2008, which stipulates that there must be no US troops in Iraq at all by December 31 of this year.

Al-Maliki is on record as saying that the SOFA cannot be amended. Rather, a new SOFA would have to be negotiated and approved by parliament, which might bring US troops back into the country. Personally, I am doubtful that if the issue goes to parliament, a US troop presence can be approved. The Kurds would want it, and maybe some members of al-Maliki’s coalition, and a few members of the Iraqiya List (now largely Sunni Arab in character). But I doubt the plan could get 163 votes or a majority in parliament.

The only way it could be done would be for the cabinet to make the decision and sidestep parliament. Then the Kurds, Allawi’s Iraqiya and al-Maliki could push it through if they wanted to. But al-Maliki has repeatedly said that the matter would have to go to parliament. Until he reneges on that commitment, my guess is that the plan is doomed.

Another possibility would be to reclassify US troops as trainers. This step would be legitimate insofar as Iraq has ordered a lot of military equipment, especially planes and helicopters, from the US, on which Iraqi crews will need substantial training.

But any way such a decision were made would provoke a backlash from the Sadrists, who have threatened to take back up arms if there are US troops in the country in 2012, and from nationalist or fundamentalist Sunnis. As Tom Ricks, among our most experienced Iraq correspondents, points out, 3,000 US troops aren’t troops, they are hostages waiting to be taken.

McCain and Lindsey play the Iran card in arguing for keeping a division in Iraq, saying that otherwise Iran will take over. But this argument is, as usual with Republican politicians regarding Iraq, a bewilderingly uninformed one. The US presided over the destruction of a Sunni-dominated secular Arab nationalist regime and the installation of a government led by fundamentalist Shiites, many of whom had lived in exile in Iran and had excellent relations with Tehran. That cow is out of the barn, and the presence of US troops is unlikely to be relevant to the budding Tehran-Baghdad-Damascus axis, which is a political reality.

Iraq’s parliamentary system regularly produces hung parliaments and governments can only be formed with outside mediation. The US played that role in 2005, but Iran played it in 2010, by pressuring Muqtada al-Sadr to join a governing coalition with his enemy, al-Maliki. Al-Maliki is thus beholden to both Sadr and to Iran politically, and has been pushed toward Tehran by the Sunni crackdown on the Shiites of Bahrain and the prospect of a Sunni overthrow of the Shiite-dominated Baath Party in Syria. That is, the Arab Spring has finally produced that Shiite crescent of which the Sunni Arab monarchs began being afraid in 2004. Nothing Washington does is likely to change this new and consolidating alignment. And it is this alignment that makes a long-term US troop presence so unlikely, since none of the regional principals want it. But were some US troops to stay, they would be in constant danger and if they were hit, it could provoke the Third American-Iraqi War.

0 Retweet 4 Share 28 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Iraq | 20 Comments

Turkey Crisis Provokes Israeli Army Anger at Lieberman

Posted on 09/07/2011 by Juan

The crisis between Turkey and Israel deepened on Monday, allegedly provoking severe tensions between the Israeli officer corps and the far right-wing Minister of Foreign Affairs, Avigdor Lieberman. There was also disarray among the officers over an allegation by one general that the Middle East might be moving toward comprehensive war, an assessment that was firmly rejected by the Israeli chief of staff and the minister of defense.

The Turkish government of Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan froze military trade and sent more naval vessels in the the eastern Mediterranean on Monday. Erdogan will go to Egypt next week to improve ties with its new revolutionary government. There is some talk of Erdogan visiting Gaza while in Egypt, but the trip may not materialize, especially if Egypt’s transitional government is [not] open to the idea.

Erdogan’s ruling AK Party includes among its constituencies Turks who are interested in Muslim politics. But AK is not a fundamentalist party and has not sought Islamization of Turkish law.

Israeli politicians and officers are usually adept in presenting a united front to the outside world, even though Israeli society is, like any other, divided socially and politically. But the Turkey crisis and the upheavals in the Arab have provoked open divisions that offer a window on the fissures in the Israeli elite.

PM Erdogan is angry that Israel refuses to apologize for killing 9 Turks on the Gaza aid ship, the Mavi Marmara, in May, 2010. The Israeli government maintains that commandos landing on the ship were within their rights to enforce the naval blockade against the Gaza Strip, which they construe as an enemy state. But the rest of the world almost uniformly views Israel as the Occupying Power for the Gaza Strip, insofar as it controls the Strip’s land borders, sea and air space.

Since Israel refuses to allow the Palestinians to have a state, it is hard to see how they can call Gaza an enemy state. Occupying powers operate in international law under the Geneva Convention of 1949, which forbids punitive measures against the civilian population of the sort that Israel routinely takes against Palestinians in Gaza (they are not allowed to export anything they produce or make, which has thrown most of them into horrible poverty and food insecurity).

Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that the top Israeli officers are saying that the government should offer an apology, “even if it is undeserved,” but have been rebuffed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Avigdor Lieberman. The Turkish and Israeli militaries have had close ties in recent years. Al-Hayat says that Avigdor Lieberman of the extremist Yisrael Beitenu (“Israel is our Home”) Party thinks the Turks can be dealt with through international pressure.

Lieberman is known for his hard line stances and tendency to far rightwing extremism. He is said to have once joked about Israel bombing the Aswan Dam and washing the Egyptians into the Red Sea should Egypt take a negative stance toward Israel. He has also campaigned to deprive the 20% of the Israeli population that is Arab of their Israeli citizenship. Lieberman has been accused of harboring racist sentiments toward the Muslim peoples that surround Israel in the Middle East.

Not only is the officer corps apparently blaming Lieberman rather than the Turks for the severity of the crisis, but so too is opposition leader Tzipi Livni of the Kadima Party. She points out that Kadima had tense moments with Turkey, but always managed to find a way to smoothe over disputes, and she rejects the Likud-led coalition’s assertion that the rift with Ankara is “inevitable.” Kadima is a splinter of the Likud Party that rejected Greater Israel expansionism to some extent and favored relinquishing much Palestinian territory.

Meanwhile, the recent comment by Major Gen. Eyal Eisenberg that the Middle East might be moving toward comprehensive war was rebutted by his bosses, Israeli chief of staff Lt. Gen. Beni Gantz and Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Barak’s subordinate Amos Gil’ad, head of the Defense Ministry’s Political-Security Department, underlined that there is no coalition of Arab armies, and there is no current significant threat of terrorism inside Israel. Barak added that Israel can live even with a nuclear-armed neighbor (apparently uncharacteristically, Barak wants to downplay the putative threat of Iran’s civilian nuclear research program.

Barak has in the past admitted that an atmosphere of high tension between Israel and Middle Eastern regional powers could cause substantial Israeli out-migration.

“Israeli Military Sources Deny Regional War Likelihood; Gil’ad: Situation Best Ever
Israel — OSC Summary
Tuesday, September 6, 2011 …
Document Type: OSC Summary…

Gil’ad: Eisenberg’s Statement Simplistic, Incorrect

State-funded but independent Jerusalem Voice of Israel Network B in Hebrew reports at 0400 GMT: “IDF and defense establishment sources are saying that there is no situation assessment anticipating a comprehensive war. Their comments came in the wake of the remarks of Major General Eyal Eisenberg, the Home Front Command chief, to the effect that the likelihood of a comprehensive war is rising. Speaking to our army and defense affairs correspondent Karmela Menashe, a defense source wondered whether it was necessary to warm up the arena. He added that it is untenable that an IDF general would make comments that would force the army to rephrase his remarks.

“Chief of Staff Beni Gantz said yesterday in closed discussions that he is not certain the Arab Spring is bringing a true spring, and that it may bring a winter or a fall. A military source noted that Gen Eisenberg may have been referring to the chief of staff’s statement. He stressed that Lt Gen Gantz did not speak of a growing likelihood of a comprehensive war.
“Amos Gil’ad, head of the Defense Ministry’s Political-Security Department, said in an interview with the Voice of Israel this morning that the comprehensive war statement was simplistic and incorrect. According to him, our security situation has never been better: There is no domestic terrorism, there is deterrence both in the north and the south, there is no coalition of Arab armies, and the region’s regimes are stable. Nevertheless, processes are taking place that deserve our attention.

“Gil’ad further told our correspondent Arye Golan that Turkey has not dissociated itself from Israel. He stressed that, contrary to reports, the Israeli military attache in Turkey remains in his position. He noted that Turkey stands to lose a lot if it pursues an extreme course of action, and this aspect is the space in which Israel should maneuver.”

Baraq: Comprehensive War Not Expected in Near Future, Nonconventional Weapons Unlikely

Commercial Jerusalem Channel 2 Television Online in Hebrew reports at 0656 GMT: “Defense Minister Ehud Baraq said in the course of a tour this morning that ‘there is no fear of a comprehensive war in the near future’ and that ‘the national situation assessment has not changed.’ Baraq made these remarks just hours after an opposite statement was made last night by Home Front Command Eyal Eisenberg.”

“Baraq added: ‘We are prepared for any eventuality, but it seems unlikely that any of our enemies will use nonconventional weapons, if they possess any, in a war against Israel.’”
“Political and defense sources were angry with Eisenberg’s remarks. ‘He revealed classified material that had been presented in a situation assessment only yesterday,’ they told the IDF Radio this morning.” Eisenberg Qualifies Statement

Amir Buhbut’s 0730 GMT report in leading news site Tel Aviv Walla! in Hebrew adds that “Gen Eisenberg this morning asked for a meeting with Chief of Staff Beni Gantz ‘to explain his gloomy forecasts’ concerning the growing likelihood of a comprehensive war.” “Eisenberg stressed that a comprehensive war may break out only if the most extreme scenarios materialize.”

0 Retweet 5 Share 23 StumbleUpon 5 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Israel/ Palestine, Turkey | 22 Comments

Accord Reached for Peaceful Entry of Bani Walid?

Posted on 09/06/2011 by Juan

Aljazeera Arabic is reporting a breakthrough in the negotiations between the new government in Tripoli and the elders of the city of Bani Walid, a center of pro-Qaddafi military personnel and sentiments. The city authorities say they will permit the Transitional National Council’s troops to enter the city without opposition around noon on Tuesday, according to the Doha-based channel. These negotiations had postponed plans to invest the city formulated last week. The TNC fighters also said that Saif al-Islam Qaddafi had left, or would momentarily leave the city.

If the TNC really can enter Bani Walid peacefully, it would be a great accomplishment for the new Libya, obviating a siege of a reluctant population, and helping with the process of national reconciliation.

Indeed, a large military convoy of regime loyalists, consisting of some 200 vehicles, departed south Libya for Niger on Monday, raising questions of whether the remaining Qaddafis were in it or planned to join it. Deposed dictator Muammar Qaddafi is said to plan to flee to Burkina Faso in West Africa.

0 Retweet 1 Share 19 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Libya | 5 Comments

Top Ten Good News Green Energy Stories

Posted on 09/06/2011 by Juan

Here are the week’s top ten energy good news stories.

1. A Japanese technical innovation has the potential to double or triple the power generated by wind turbines.

2. Germany now gets over 20% of its energy from low-carbon sources: 6.5% wind, 5.6% biomass, 3.5% solar, 3.3% hydro and 0.8% other.

3. Over 100 companies are researching wave energy, which will likely provide 180 gigawatts of power by 2050. It takes the world’s 440 nuclear power reactors to produce 376 GWe at the moment, so this would be equivalent to building 220 new nuclear plants.

4. Global wind power installation rebounded in the first half of 2011, growing 18% more than in the same period in 2010. By the end of 2011, wind will account for 3% of the world’s energy, but that percentage is rapidly growing.

5. The European Union is cooperating with Egypt to make the latter country a solar and wind powerhouse. I was told by Egyptian activists in July of this year that the Mubarak government had given renewables short shrift because of Saudi Arabian pressure.

6. Europe gets 5.5% of its energy from wind turbines, but for individual member states the amount can be much greater. Denmark gets a quarter of its electricity from wind power, while substantial wind power producers include Portugal and Germany.

7. The Japanese political political establishment has decided to throw a lot of money at renewable energy. The so-called feed-in tariff will spur growth so much that Japan’s solar energy production will like grow by a factor of 5 in the short term.

8. The good news is that new and more efficient solar panels are daily coming on line. The bad news is that Solyndria was done in by this development to some extent. The real meaning of the failure of Solyndria last week is that there were better and more efficient competitors, not that solar energy doesn’t pay or that the US has gone in for it too fast.

9. China’s wind energy market is booming, with the Asian giant having added over 8 gigawatts in wind energy capacity in the first half of 2011. China constitutes 43% of the world market for wind turbines, and its demand is rising quickly.

10. The “Light Middle East” exhibit in Dubai will underline Middle Eastern building techniques that minimize the use of energy. Muslim architects have for centuries been masters at using courtyards and fountains to cool buildings naturally.

.

0 Retweet 9 Share 53 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Energy, Environment | 15 Comments

China offered Qaddafi Armaments in midst of war

Posted on 09/05/2011 by Juan

People who favored saving the civilian populations of Benghazi and other eastern Libyan cities from Qaddafi’s tanks and artillery have often been termed “interventionists.” But it turns out that there was more than one kind of interventionism. The Globe and Mail reports that documents discovered in mid-July show that state-owned Chinese weapons companies offered to sell Libya weaponry. The plan was to move items from Algeria or South Africa.

China has denied the report, but officials of the new Libyan government say the evidence is air tight.

It is alleged that Algeria was a source of weapons and support for Qaddafi.

China, Brazil, Russia and India worried that Libya would become a precedent for NATO intervention in their own countries. The fear is misplaced–after Iraq there is no appetite in the West for boots on the ground.

So it isn’t a question of interventionism. The question is who’s intervention you support.

0 Retweet 3 Share 20 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Uncategorized | 52 Comments

Israeli Likud Gov’t Buffeted by Turkish Suit, Massive Protests

Posted on 09/04/2011 by Juan

The far right wing government of Binyamin Netanyahu in Israel is being buffeted both internationally and domestically. In both instances, the discontent is being produced by right wing policies, which argue for the goodness of hierarchy, the legitimacy of inequality, and express a preference for the use of force to settle problems.

Turkey has decided to take Israel to the International Court of Justice in the Hague over the wrongful killing of 9 Turks (one of them an American citizen) by Israeli commandos in May of 2010. The commandos boarded an aid ship, the Mavi Marmara, attempting to break the Israeli naval blockade on Gaza.

Israel has refused to apologize for the killings, to admit any wrong, or to pay compensation to the families of the victims, infuriating a Turkish government that had been one of the Israelis’ few friends in the region. The refusal to apologize reflects the ruling Likud Party’s philosophy of the Iron Fist, which has roots in the mass politics of the interwar period.

A UN Human Rights commission report had found that both the blockade and the attack on the Mavi Marmara are illegal in international law. The Palmer report, prepared by a former New Zealand Prime Minister and former Colombian president Alvaro Uribe and issued on Friday condemned Israel for excessive force but called the blockade itself legal because it aimed at preventing weapons from reaching Gaza. (The blockade of weapons imports is of course legal, but Israel as the occupying power is in the wrong legally to blockade staples and other necessary goods, and is wrong to prevent Palestinians from exporting their products; that Israel is wrong is clear in the plain text of the Geneva Convention of 1949 on occupied territories, which Mssrs. Palmer and Uribe appear to have neglected to consult.) Neither UN committee report on the incident has any legal standing, which is why Turkey is going to a body that has the standing to adjudicate the dispute– the ICJ.

Turkey also announced an end to Turkish-Israeli military cooperation and reduced the level of diplomatic recognition between the two countries.

Aljazeera English reports:

The likelihood is that Turkey will prevail at the ICJ, since both UN investigations have maintained that Israeli commandos in fact committed a tort in the killings.

An ICJ ruling against Israel on this issue could begin an avalanche of tort suits against the Israelis, who have been pursuing illegal policies in settling the occupied West Bank and usurping Palestinian land and water. Such international judgments could accelerate after the United Nations General Assembly votes to admit Palestine to membership in the UN, which will likely have the effect of encouraging countries to upgrade Palestinian representation to embassy status. Palestinians with an embassy would be in a position to file persuasive amicae curiae briefs in tort lawsuits against Israeli concerns in a particular country that are owned by companies that profit from illegal West Bank colonization.

The domestic turmoil came in the form of big demonstrations around the country by Israelis protesting the high cost of living. Right wing politics is about government favoring the rich over the rest of the population, about using ethnic divisions, alleged threats to the nation, and other diversions to justify to the mass of voters as to why they should elect a party that will take money and resources away from them and give it to the super-wealthy.

Instead of protesting that a handful of billionaires is scarfing up the lion’s share of the country’s increased wealth, Israelis would do better just to turn the right wing parties out of office in the next election.

0 Retweet 12 Share 37 StumbleUpon 9 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Israel/ Palestine | 25 Comments

« Older Entries