In this mailing:
- Hisham Jarallah: Why is the Peace Process Dead?
- Raymond Ibrahim: Egypt: Islamists vs. Copts
Why is the Peace Process Dead?
by Hisham Jarallah
June 20, 2012 at 5:00 am
June 20, 2012 at 5:00 am
Share:
   |
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
The peace
process is dead because a majority in the Arab and Muslim world still has not
come to terms with Israel's right to exist.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas
announced this week that the Middle East peace process was "clinically
dead" because Israel was refusing to accept his conditions for returning
to the negotiating table.
Abbas has been demanding that Israel freeze all
settlement construction and recognize the pre-1967 lines as the future borders
of a Palestinian state.
Recently, Abbas added two more conditions for
resuming the stalled peace talks: first, that Israel allow him to import more
weapons for his police forces in the West Bank, and second, the release of
Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails.
Abbas is in fact searching for any excuse not
to return to the negotiating table with Israel.
His demand that Israel stop building in the
settlements sounds more like a joke: has he just discovered that there are
settlements in the West Bank?
Why did his predecessor, Yasser Arafat,
negotiate for many years with Israel while the construction in the settlements
was continuing? And why did Abbas also negotiate with Israeli leaders before
Benjamin Netanyahu was elected prime minister more than three years ago --
while the construction work was continuing?
By demanding that Israel recognize the pre-1967
lines as the borders of a future Palestinian state, Abbas is actually asking
that Israel commit itself in advance to giving him everything -- even before
the negotiations have resumed.
Abbas's two new conditions - the release of
prisoners and import of weapons - came as a surprise even to some Palestinians
in the West Bank. It is not even clear how the release of Palestinians who were
involved in terror attacks would advance the cause of peace.
It is also not clear how bringing additional
rifles and pistols into the Palestinian Authority-controlled territories is
supposed to help achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
Abbas is right in saying that the peace process
is "clinically dead." The peace process has been dead for some time
now.
It died the day a majority of Palestinians
voted for Hamas in a free and fair election in 2006.
The peace process died when Hamas expelled the
Palestinian Authority from the Gaza Strip and established an Islamic emirate in
the area.
The peace process died even long before that.
It passed away the day Yasser Arafat said no to former Israeli Prime Minister
Ehud Barak at the botched Camp David summit in 2000.
The peace process died when Abbas again said no
to another generous offer that was made by Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert.
The peace process died when the Palestinian
Authority got involved in suicide bombings and terror attacks during the second
intifada.
The peace process died the day Palestinian
policemen used their American and Israeli-supplied weapons to kill Israeli
civilians and soldiers.
The peace process has been dead ever since the
Palestinians ended up with two separate states - one in the West Bank and one
in the Gaza Strip.
The so-called Arab Spring, which has brought
Islamists and jihadists to power in a number of Arab countries, is another
reason why the peace process is dead. Egypt and Jordan, the only two Arab
countries which peace treaties with Israel, will soon fall into the hands of
the Muslim Brotherhood, driving the final nail into the coffin of the peace
process.
The peace process is dead because a majority in
the Arab and Islamic world still has not come to terms with Israel's right to
exist.
Hisham Jarallah is a journalist based in the
West Bank.
Related Topics: Hisham Jarallah
Egypt:
Islamists vs. Copts
An Animosity That Seeks Any Excuse
to Attack
by Raymond Ibrahim
June 20, 2012 at 4:30 am
June 20, 2012 at 4:30 am
Share:
|
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
If Egypt's
government does go Islamist—and early presidential election results indicate it
will— millions of powerless Christians will be seen as troublesome and
unwelcome infidels, not just by "extremists," but by the government
as well: the first step to genocide.
As Egypt's presidential elections come to a
close, with the
Brotherhood claiming presidential victory, the future for Egypt's
indigenous Christians, the Copts, looks bleak.
Earlier, after the first presidential elections
of May 23-24, any number of Islamists denounced them,
bemoaning that it was the Copts who were responsible for the secularist
candidate Ahmed Shafiq's good showing.
Even though Shafiq is a "remnant" of
the Mubarak regime, under which Copts suffered, he is seen as the lesser of two
evils to an Islamist presidency. As one Copt put it: "What did
they want us to do? Whoever says that supporting Shafiq is a crime against the
January 25 Revolution, we ask him to advise us for whom should we vote? The sea
is in front of us and the Islamists are behind us."
Abu Ismail,
the Islamic fundamentalist Salafi presidential candidate who was disqualified,
expressed "great disappointment" in "our Coptic brethren,"
saying, "I do not understand why the Copts so adamantly voted for Ahmed
Shafiq," and portraying the vote as some sort of conspiracy between the
Copts, the old regime, and even Israel: "Exactly what relationship and
benefit do the Copts have with the old regime?" he asked.
Tarek al-Zomor, a prominent figure of the
Gama'a al-Islamiyya—the terrorist organization that slaughtered some 60
European tourists during the Luxor Massacre—"demanded an apology from the
Copts" for voting for Shafiq, and threatened that "this was a fatal
error."
To an extent, of course, Islamist attacks on
Copts were due less to the Copts' votes for Shafiq, and more to do with the
usual animosity for Christians—an animosity that seems to seek any excuse to
attack them. By virtue of their greater numbers, many more Muslims did in fact
vote for Shafiq than did Christians; even the Islamic Sufi Council of Egypt
expressed its
support for Shafiq instead of for the Muslim Brotherhood's candidate who
advocates Islamic Sharia law.
Realizing that threats, with which Copts are
well acquainted, would not prevent Christians from voting for the secular
candidate, and in a request that borders on the comical if not absurd,
Islamists began imploring the Copts to vote for the Brotherhood's Morsi, who
some say vows to return the Copts to bondage. Islamist kingpin Yusuf
al-Qaradawi himself called on politically active Muslims to go meet with
the Copts and "explain to them" how they have nothing to fear from an
Islamist president, telling them that "Shafiq will be of no use to
you."
Most adamant was popular TV personality
Muhammad Hassan, a cleric who appeared several times assuring Copts that they
have "nothing
to fear from the application of Sharia," which he portrayed as the
best guarantor for their safety and freedom. A day before the elections, Hassan
implored the Copts "to elect Sharia and vote for Dr. Muhammad Morsi,
promising them peace and security, and that they would live in prosperity under
Sharia law."
Sheikh Muhammad Hassan is, incidentally, the
same cleric who says Islam forbids
Muslims from smiling at infidels—except whenever Muslims need to win them
over. One week before he began beseeching Copts to vote for Sharia, he was in
Saudi Arabia making disparaging
comments about "those who say Allah has a son," the Koran's
condemnatory language for Christians.
What does all this mean? For a long time, the
various Egyptian regimes and Islamist organizations have downplayed the numbers
and significance of the nation's Christians, the Copts, sometimes saying they
make up as few as 5% of the total population— a statistic many Western
resources quote without hesitation. Others institutions, however—pointing to
the Coptic Orthodox Church's birth and death registry—say Egypt's Copts
constitute up to 20% of the total population. Based on the Islamist response to
the first presidential elections, such a figure may not be so farfetched.
Either way, Copts constitute the largest
Christian bloc in the Middle East—a circumstance that has other implications.
As seen during the presidential elections, large numbers of Christians may help
to stave off the Islamization of Egypt. But if Egypt's government does go
Islamist—and early presidential election results indicate it will—fears of
persecution on a grand scale become legitimate precisely because of the Copts'
large numbers, which will work against them: Millions of powerless Christians
will be seen as troublesome and unwelcome infidels, not just by
"extremists," but by the government as well, which, as history
teaches, can be the first step to genocide.
Raymond
Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center
and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum
Related Topics: Egypt
| Raymond
Ibrahim
You
are subscribed to this list as vicky13@rogers.com.
To edit your subscription options, or to unsubscribe, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_edit.php
To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php
To edit your subscription options, or to unsubscribe, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_edit.php
To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment