 |
   |
|
In this mailing:
Has Kerry Heard of the Palestinians' "Hitler"?
by Khaled Abu
Toameh
December 23, 2013 at 5:00 am
  Be the first of your
friends to like this.
Abbas, it seems, has lost control not
only over the Gaza Strip, but also his Fatah faction. The widespread support
for "Hitler" [Jamal Abu al Rub] reflects the state of
dissatisfaction with Abbas and his top aides. Some Palestinians see the recent
events as the beginning of a mutiny against Abbas. The mounting tensions are
an indicator of what awaits Abbas if and when he signs a deal with Israel.
What the U.S. seems not to understand
is that a weak, divided and discredited Fatah will never be able to sign any
agreement with Israel.
Even worse, Fatah's internal problems
are good news for Hamas and the enemies of peace.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry may soon have to come up with a new
plan to help Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas solve internal
problems in ruling his Fatah faction.The only plan that Kerry has thus far proposed is one that talks about future security arrangements between a Palestinian state and Israel. What Kerry and the State Department are probably unaware of is that Fatah, Israel's "peace partner," is in urgent need of a plan to rid it of its internal disputes. What the U.S. seems not to understand is that a weak, divided and discredited Fatah will never be able to sign any agreement with Israel. A series of events over the past few weeks have left many Palestinians wondering if Fatah will ever be able to recover and rehabilitate itself in the aftermath of its defeat by Hamas in the January 2006 parliamentary election. These events have also raised questions as to Abbas's ability to rein in and control his own loyalists in Fatah. Abbas, it seems, has lost control not only over the Gaza Strip, but also his Fatah faction. The most recent crisis in Fatah erupted last week when Fatah legislator and activist Jamal Abu al Rub, who is nicknamed "Hitler," punched senior Fatah rival Jibril Rajoub three times in the face after a violent confrontation in Ramallah's Grand Park Hotel, where Rajoub, a former Fatah security commander, was waiting to meet with the Chinese foreign minister. Abu al Rub later explained that Rajoub had "provoked" him, and that was why he had decided to assault him. According to Abu al Rub, about two months ago one of Rajoub's bodyguards had assaulted him during a heated meeting of Fatah leaders in Ramallah. Abbas, in response, decided to expel Abu al Rub from Fatah. The decision drew strong condemnations from Abu al Rub's supporters in the Jenin area of the northern West Bank, where dozens of Fatah activists tendered their resignations to Abbas. In a further escalation, Fatah gunmen loyal to Abu al Rub expelled Palestinian Authority policemen from the town of Qabatya near Jenin. Palestinians have expressed fear that the fight between Abu al Rub and Rajoub could lead to an all-out bloody confrontation between supporters of the two men. Abu al Rub has since won the admiration of many Palestinians for daring to assault one of the most powerful figures in Fatah. "Oh Hitler, you have brought pride to the homeland and Allah," wrote on of Abu al Rub's fans on Facebook. Another fan wrote: "We are all Hitler. We are with you even to death!" The widespread support for "Hitler" reflects the state of dissatisfaction with Abbas and his top aides. Rajoub, who heads the Palestinian Football Association, is one of Abbas's closest confidants. By expelling Abu al Rub from Fatah, Abbas has managed to enrage many Fatah activists in the northern West Bank, who have anyway long been complaining that the Palestinian president was "marginalizing" them. Some Palestinians see the recent events in the northern West Bank as the beginning of a mutiny against Abbas and the Palestinian Authority leadership in Ramallah. Abu al Rub represents the "young guard" in Fatah who have always challenged Abbas and Fatah's "old guard." Fatah's "young guard" believes that the veteran leaders of their factions who came to the West Bank and Gaza Strip after the signing of the Oslo Accords 20 years ago have "hijacked" the Palestinian cause by taking exclusive control over the Palestinian Authority. Abbas and Fatah's veteran leaders have already succeeded in alienating many other grassroots representatives of the "young guard." Last month, another Fatah grassroots leader, Sufyan Abu Zaida, escaped an assassination attempt when unidentified gunmen fired 20 shots at his car. The attack on Abu Zaida came weeks after he published an article denouncing Abbas as a tyrant. Similar attacks have also targeted prominent Fatah operatives and Abbas critics Hussam Khader and Majed Abu Shamaleh. The infighting in Fatah does not bode well for John Kerry's efforts to achieve peace between the Palestinians and Israel. The mounting tensions in Fatah are an indicator of what awaits Abbas if and when he signs a deal with Israel. Even worse, Fatah's internal problems are good news for Hamas and the enemies of peace.
Related Topics: Khaled Abu
Toameh
Anti-Fascists Caught Looking the Wrong Way?
by Douglas Murray
December 23, 2013 at 4:30 am
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
Unite Against Fascism are not alone
in this. The group Hope Not Hate appears to have set people up for targeting
in exactly the way they claim the "fascists" do.
Now that Michael Adebolajo has been
sentenced, perhaps UAF and other groups like it — as well as politicians,
including Prime Minister David Cameron, who are publicly associated with UAF
as founding signatories — might give serious thought to how this situation
came about.
Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adbowale have been convicted at the Old Bailey
for the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby, in which he was run over by a car, then
repeatedly stabbed, then nearly beheaded in Woolwich in May. Hardly
unexpected, nevertheless, one aspect of the case can now receive the
spotlight it deserves. Principally because it reveals so much about the state
in which Britain currently finds itself.Since Islamist extremism first came to Britain in the last two decades, anybody who objected to the horror was subjected to accusations of bigotry, fascism, racism and -- during the last decade or so -- "Islamophobia." Some of these slurs were made casually while others came from the organized left who like to describe themselves as "anti-fascist." If this self-appointed title has always sounded slightly off-kilter and self-aggrandising, it is because it is. After all, it was brave and important to be an anti-fascist in, say Germany in the 1930s. But in Britain in the 21st century there just aren't many Nazis. However, for a certain people being "anti-fascist" is still so important that they will adopt this identity even if there are no "fascists" to be "anti" at. "Anti-fascists" need "fascists," and so find them even when they are not there. The only bloc in Britain which could warrant their attention, the British National Party (BNP), are, thank goodness, an exaggerated threat and an insignificant political force. Yet they do provide "anti-fascists" with some of their old cause. But otherwise the problem for "anti-fascism" in Britain is that it is essentially a movement that has lost its enemy. Unless, of course, you count the form of Islamic fascism which has been resurrected in recent decades. Anti-Semitic, homophobic and otherwise minority-hating, Islamic extremism provides the closest thumbprint imaginable to the fascism that the far-left campaign group Unite Against Fascism (UAF) and others once claimed to oppose. Yet having sat through 9/11 and 7/7, groups such as UAF only really found a cause in that fight once they felt able to claim a perceived "backlash" against Muslims in general. Then they identified anyone tackling radical Islam -- rather than the Islamists -- as the "fascists" and lined up against them. This was an instructive and -- not to overblow it -- a significant historic mistake. Take the following example. On 11th September 2009, a rally was organized outside a mosque in Harrow by a group called "Stop the Islamisation of Europe" as well as members of the English Defence League. For what it is worth, such a protest seems not only unnecessary and pointless but also rude. In other words it would ordinarily be worth ignoring. But UAF decided to go into full "You shall not pass" mode and whip up its supporters into opposing the "racists" and "bigots" who they said would hold the protest. As it was, the mosque protest itself was cancelled, though some supporters of one group or other appear to have hung around the fringes. But the UAF counter-protest went ahead, anyway. There was some serious rioting and violence, as well as a number of arrests, including nine for possession of weapons. By the UAF's own admission, the violence appears to have been caused by its own supporters. Indeed a UAF spokesmen said to the local press: While the anti-fascist rally was for the most part peaceful and good natured, there were sporadic clashes when small groups of racists attempted to get near the mosque. The racists were chased off by groups of Muslim youths, leading to occasional clashes with police. UAF believes the blame for these incidents lies firmly with the racists trying to intimidate Muslims, not with the youths trying to protect their community. What is especially a striking is that, as this video shows, among those young "Muslim youths" allegedly "protecting their community" was one of the people convicted this week -- Michael Adebolajo. He can be seen in the video standing on a soap box, addressing the crowd with words that seem not remotely intimidated and certainly very far from being anti-fascist. It begins with the usual cries of "Takbir" [A call to prayer and a call to the defense of Islam] and '"Allahu Akbar" [Allah is Greater]. And then Adebolajo begins his address: My Brothers remain in your ranks and do not be scared of these filthy Kuffar [non-believers in Islam] . They are pigs. Allah says they are worse than cattle. Do not be scared of them. Do not turn your back to them. Our messenger Mohammed fought way worse than them. Do not be scared of them, do not be scared of the police or the cameras. You are here only to please Allah. You are not here for any other reason. If you are here just for a fight, leave our ranks. We only want those who are sincere to Allah. Purify your intention." Takbir. Allahu Akbar etc.
But the real questions in all this lie with the UAF. Adebolajo was not exactly speaking quietly. Nor was he speaking to a small section of the crowd. As viewers will see, at the very end of the clip, as the camera pans out, another member of the crowd, an unidentified UAF supporter, can be seen holding a "Stop the fascist BNP" banner. Of course the BNP was not organizing the protest about any causes the UAF were claiming to protest. And in any event, when some supporters turned up on the fringes, the protest did not go ahead. But you do have to wonder what was going through the head of the man or woman holding a banner opposing a fascist group, but had just stood by, with the rest of the crowd, as Adebolajo gave his call to arms to his "Brothers." If an EDL, or similar rally, had been addressed by someone making the kind of speech Adbolajo made, the UAF and Hope Not Hate and all the other groups who pride themselves on their "anti-fascism" would have leapt on it as a demonstration of the group's attractions, affiliations and more. UAF are not alone in this. The group Hope not Hate appears to have set people up for targeting in exactly the way they claim "fascists" do. Now that Adebolajo has been sentenced, perhaps UAF -- and other groups like it -- might give serious thought to how this situation came about. As should those politicians, including Prime Minister David Cameron, who are publicly associated with UAF as founding signatories. The wider question, of course, is the more important: How is it that when violent fascism returned to Europe, the "anti-fascist" groups were all caught looking the other way?
Related Topics: United
Kingdom | Douglas Murray
Egypt's New Constitution: As Bad as its Old One?
by Michael
Armanious
December 23, 2013 at 4:00 am
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
Amr Moussa, chairman of the committee
tasked with amending the Islamist constitution, talked about how the new
constitution guarantees that Egypt will have a "civilian
government" and promote the creation of a "democratic and modern
country."
But he did not promise that it would
be a secular one. Moussa asserts that the new constitution bans the creation
of parties based on religion, but it gives Egypt's theocrats-in-waiting a way
to get around the ban on by allowing parties to be established on
"Islamic reference"; and Article Two remains.
"In Egypt, a civil state means a
modern nationalist state that is compatible with Islamist provisions." —
Ali Gomaa, Egypt's former Grand Mufti.
Egypt's interim president Adly Mansour has set January 14 and 15, 2014, as
the dates for a referendum on the country's amended constitution.Amr Moussa – the chairman of the (fifty-member) Committee of Fifty tasked with amending the 2012 Islamist constitution – appeared in multiple televised interviews to tell about the importance of the new amended constitution for the future of Egypt. He talked about how the new constitution guarantees that Egypt will have a "civilian government" and will promote the creation of a "democratic and modern country." He stressed that Egypt will have no military or theocratic government. He also listed several articles that will guarantee freedom for Egyptians, including freedom of religion and freedom of expression. A closer look at the constitution itself reveals that it is not the freedom-promoting document Moussa describes it as being.
Retaining Article Two is not the only problem with the constitution. It also places Egypt's military beyond civilian oversight, rendering the phrase "civilian government" meaningless. This condition is a huge problem: Egypt's armed forces have amassed an enormous and independent economic empire which includes gas stations, banquet halls, construction operations, factories, and vast tracts of land. Consequently, Egyptian generals are the feudal lords of modern Egypt; their underlings are their squires and scribes, and those outside the military are turned into defenseless peasants. This arrangement is solidified by another part of the constitution that allows Egyptian civilians to be tried in a military court. In an effort to allay fear over this, Moussa stressed that civilians can only be tried in a military court in specific kinds of cases – when someone attacks a military buildings or equipment, for example. But Major General Medhat Radwan Gazi, chief of military justice, contradicted Mr. Moussa. Gazi confirmed that disputes between civilians and the operators of military owned-businesses could be settled by a military court to protect the officers or soldiers who work and manage these businesses. Gazi also said that there is no difference between an officer defending the country in a tank or pumping gas or managing a gas station. They are all officers of the armed forces, so any dispute with the public will be tried in military court. In sum, the proposed constitution entrenches a modern-day system of feudalism in the land of the Nile. This plan is a disaster. Egypt has been under military rule for over 61 years, and emergency laws have been used for over 32 years of its recent history. Thousands of civilians have been tried and convicted in military courts for all kinds of charges. Gazi confirmed that the armed forces will continue governing Egypt for the foreseeable future. One would think that in exchange for cementing the status of Egypt's generals as modern-day Pharaohs, the new constitution would at least protect Egyptian citizens from an onslaught of theocratic extremism. It does not. Moussa asserts that the new constitution bans the establishment of political parties based on religion, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, but it gives Egypt's theocrats-in-waiting a way to get around this ban by allowing parties to be established on "Islamic reference." What is the difference? So far, 11 parties have already followed this path, including the Hizb El-Benaa Wa El-Tanmia, and the Al Nour Party. Further, while Moussa stated that under the new constitution Egypt would have a civilian state, he did not promise that it would be a secular one. When Christian leaders expressed concern that the proposed constitution did not call for the creation of secular government that would protect their rights, Moussa said told people not to get hung up on technicalities. This is no technicality. It was the Salafist Nour party that insisted on using the phrase "a civilian government" as a way to protect Egypt's Islamist parties. Again and again, the Salafis, who believe that the non-Muslim cannot rule over a Muslim, have insisted that the president should not be a Christian or a woman. Under the proposed "civilian" government (even one that privileges the military), such an arrangement is completely intolerable because it does not address Egypt's real challenges. What Moussa describes as a "technicality" is actually a loophole the size of a mosque (or an armored personnel carrier). Egypt's former Grand Mufti, Ali Gomaa, gave the game away in an interview with Al-Masry Al-Youm in which he stated that the concept of a civil government does not contradict Islamic law, but conforms to it. "In Egypt," he stated, "a civil state means a modern nationalist state that is compatible with Islamic provisions … Egypt did not import the civil state model from the West and that model has existed for about 150 years." Gomaa explained the state's constitution, institutions, parliament, and administrative and judicial systems are "all consistent with Islamic Sharia" which allows the adoption of a "civil model" of governance. He adds also "Egypt's Islamic identity does not clash with its civil system, which defends citizens' rights regardless of their faith." More obfuscation. Yes, the proposed constitution states that freedom of "belief" is "absolute" for all Egyptians. However, the religious practices and the building of houses of worship for Christians and Jews are still regulated by the government. Let's be clear: Even Jews and Christians do not enjoy religious freedom in Egypt and, under the new constitution, will not. There are only 49 Jews – all of them elderly women – in the land of the Nile. Why so few? Because they were driven out. Does Moussa think Jews will be returning to Egypt to exercise their rights under the new constitution even as they are demonized throughout the country in the media and in mosques? Egypt's Christians are, thankfully, more numerous, accounting for about 10-15% of the total population of nearly 90 million. But there are fewer than 2,500 churches in Egypt compared to more than 120,000 government-owned and -sponsored mosques. Christians who want to repair a church must obtain written permission from the governor of the local province. They also need to obtain the local Muslim community's approval, and permission from local and national security officials. The process can take up 20 years. By way of comparison, there are no restrictions on building mosques. Under the proposed constitution, people who worship a non-Abrahamic faith (or what Islamic scholars refer to as the "heavenly religions" of Islam, Christianity and Judaism) have no rights at all. To put it plainly, the new constitution deprives Egypt's Bahais and Shia Muslims of any rights whatsoever. They are Egyptian citizens, but the proposed constitution does not even acknowledge their existence. This total dismissal of one's own citizens is a scandal. Egypt's Bahai population consists of about about 7,000 to 15,000, and they are regarded as enemies of state in part because the founder of this faith, Bahaullah, was buried in Israel (when it was still part of the Ottoman Empire). The official government ID card lists a person's religion. Muslim (Sunni and Shia), Christians, and Jews are obliged to list their religion, but not a Bahai. Consequently, the Bahai community will continue to have hardship in finding jobs, child custody, and marriage. Shia Muslims, who number under a million, and whose leaders have been murdered in the streets by Salafists, with little response from the Egyptian police, will also continue to suffer. Under the new order to be legitimized by this constitution, free speech will be just a dream, as demonstrated by the silencing of Bassam Youssef, a popular satirist known as "Egypt's Jon Stewart". He gained popularity after January 25, 2011, and was credited for helping to remove the Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) from power on June 30, 2013. In his first and the last episode in October of his show, which his father last week said will be resuming in February, he took aim at the public who idolized General Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi. One company sought to cash in on this infatuation by creating a new chocolate brand with Al-Sisi's name. Youssef took aim at this occurrence with his usual satire and his television show, which had 30 million viewers. A few days later the show was suspended. It is still off the air. Government censorship of the media, however, has not stopped Moussa from bragging about the article which, in the new constitution, supposedly protects freedom of expression. To be fair, when General Al-Sisi sided with the majority of Egyptians and removed the Ikhwan from power, he put his life on the line with such a heroic act. But he should not be idolized as was Egypt's former President, Gamal Abdel Nasser. Like any political leader, he is human and needs to be held accountable. Moussa and the rest of Egypt's leaders should consider that transparency, and respecting people's right to conscience, is the only way for Egypt to move forward. It is time for Egyptians to realize their dreams of a dignified life. Establishing a government that places the country's military outside of civilian oversight, and creating a back door for theocrats to take over, is not the way to empower people or create a flourishing and stable society. The Egyptian constitution, and the government it establishes, need to acknowledge the rights and dignity of all of its citizens. Any document that does otherwise, is an insult to the Almighty, in whose image we are created equal, and to the people over whom it rules. Michael Armanious, a U.S.-based news analyst and video producer, was born and raised in Egypt.
Related Topics: Egypt
| Michael
Armanious
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php |
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment