Saudis, UAE, Bahrain withdraw envoys from Qatar in security dispute: the move will further undermine the coherence of the support that both Saudi Arabia and Qatar are providing rebels groups in Syria

Saudis, UAE, Bahrain withdraw envoys from Qatar in security dispute: the move will further undermine the coherence of the support that both Saudi Arabia and Qatar are providing rebels groups in Syria

    Thursday, March 06, 2014   No comments

A long-simmering row between Qatar and other Gulf states over its links with the Muslim Brotherhood and the role of its television station, Al-Jazeera, has exploded into the open with an angry shouting match and the withdrawal of ambassadors.

A joint statement by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain said they were withdrawing ambassadors from the Qatari capital Doha because it had failed to stick to an agreement by the six Gulf states not to interfere in each others’ affairs.

The statement was released after a meeting in Riyadh of foreign ministers of the six Gulf countries - the other two are Kuwait and Oman - broke up in acrimony on Tuesday night, according to reports in the local media.

...

Qatar has said it “regretted” the decision but would not retaliate. It said it was committed to GCC agreements but admitted to "differences” over unspecified “issues".

David Roberts, author of a recent book on Qatari foreign policy, said that the other Gulf states had previously entertained unrealistic expectations that Qatar’s approach might change when the new ruler, Emir Tamim, came to power last year after the abdication of his father.

“Saudi Arabia and the UAE are in such a security-focused state of mind at the moment that it is the only lens they can see things through," he said. “Qatar’s approach is thus seen as deeply, deeply unhelpful.”

The rift is unlikely to have knock-on effects immediately, despite the importance of the region’s oil and gas supplies.

But it will further undermine the coherence of the support that both Saudi Arabia and Qatar are providing rebels groups in Syria.

Each has supported different rebel militias, and the lack of co-ordination and in-fighting on the ground has frustrated the rebels' western backers.

The US and UK had hoped that the two Gulf powers would more closely align their strategy after Emir Tamim took over, but those hopes look set to be dashed.

read more >>

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain withdrew their ambassadors from Qatar

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain withdrew their ambassadors from Qatar

    Wednesday, March 05, 2014   No comments

GCC states

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain withdrew their ambassadors from Qatar on Wednesday in an unprecedented public split between Gulf Arab allies who have fallen out over the role of Islamists in a region in turmoil.

Qatar's cabinet voiced "regret and surprise" at the decision by the fellow-members of the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council, but said Doha would not pull out its own envoys and that it remained committed to GCC security and stability.

The Saudi-led trio said they had acted because Qatar failed to honor a GCC agreement signed on November 23 not to back "anyone threatening the security and stability of the GCC whether as groups or individuals - via direct security work or through political influence, and not to support hostile media".

Saudi Arabia and the UAE are fuming especially over Qatar's support for the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist movement whose political ideology challenges the principle of dynastic rule.

They also resent the way Doha has sheltered influential Brotherhood cleric Yusuf Qaradawi and given him regular airtime on its pan-Arab satellite television channel Al Jazeera.

The GCC, which normally keeps its disputes under wraps, is a pro-Western alliance of monarchies set up in the 1980s to counter Iranian influence in the Gulf, and includes several of the world's biggest producers and exporters of oil and gas.

Kuwait and Oman did not join the diplomatic rebuke to Qatar. Kuwait's parliament speaker Marzouq al-Ghanim said he was concerned by its implications. Oman has not commented.

read more >>

The Ajnad al-Sham Islamic Union: Islamist alliances have emerged to overshadow the rest

The Ajnad al-Sham Islamic Union: Islamist alliances have emerged to overshadow the rest

    Tuesday, March 04, 2014   No comments

Like everywhere else in Syria, the rebel groups fighting in the Damascus region are badly divided on the ground.

A year ago, one could identify at least a handful of rival alliances among the many dozens of factions in and around the Syrian capital. All these factions seemed to be just as busy splitting from each other as they were fighting the regime. But in the past few months, as new money has started to flood in from abroad, a haphazard process of unification has begun to yield results. Today, although many smaller groups continue to fight on separately alongside them, two Islamist alliances have emerged to overshadow the rest.

THE ISLAM ARMY

The most well-known and probably largest faction in Damascus is the Islam Army of Zahran Alloush. From humble roots in the northeastern satellite town of Douma in 2011, it has grown into one of Syria’s largest guerrilla groups, with affiliates in several areas of the country. Formerly known as the Islam Brigade, it took its current name at a ceremony marking the inclusion of new groups on September 29, 2013.

While many of the Islam Army’s subfactions seem to have been cobbled together from local rebel groups that began without any discernible ideology, its leadership is firmly Islamist: Alloush is a longtime Salafi activist and the son of a Saudi Arabia–based theologian. His virulently sectarian rhetoric has found support among like-minded groups, and in November 2013 the Islam Army became a founding faction in the Islamic Front, a large, countrywide alliance that seeks to transform Syria into a Sunni theocracy.

read more >>

President Barack Obama talks about Iran, the Middle East, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and U.S. foreign policy in general

President Barack Obama talks about Iran, the Middle East, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and U.S. foreign policy in general

    Monday, March 03, 2014   No comments

President Obama sitting down for an extensive interview

Obama to Israel -- Time Is Running Out

By Jeffrey Goldberg

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits the White House tomorrow, President Barack Obama will tell him that his country could face a bleak future -- one of international isolation and demographic disaster -- if he refuses to endorse a U.S.-drafted framework agreement for peace with the Palestinians. Obama will warn Netanyahu that time is running out for Israel as a Jewish-majority democracy. And the president will make the case that Netanyahu, alone among Israelis, has the strength and political credibility to lead his people away from the precipice.

In an hour long interview Thursday in the Oval Office, Obama, borrowing from the Jewish sage Rabbi Hillel, told me that his message to Netanyahu will be this: “If not now, when? And if not you, Mr. Prime Minister, then who?” He then took a sharper tone, saying that if Netanyahu “does not believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is the right thing to do for Israel, then he needs to articulate an alternative approach." He added, "It’s hard to come up with one that’s plausible.”

Unlike Netanyahu, Obama will not address the annual convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group, this week -- the administration is upset with Aipac for, in its view, trying to subvert American-led nuclear negotiations with Iran. In our interview, the president, while broadly supportive of Israel and a close U.S.-Israel relationship, made statements that would be met at an Aipac convention with cold silence.

Obama was blunter about Israel’s future than I've ever heard him. His language was striking, but of a piece with observations made in recent months by his secretary of state, John Kerry, who until this interview, had taken the lead in pressuring both Netanyahu and the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, to agree to a framework deal. Obama made it clear that he views Abbas as the most politically moderate leader the Palestinians may ever have. It seemed obvious to me that the president believes that the next move is Netanyahu’s.

...

I returned to this particularly sensitive subject. “Just to be clear,” I asked, “You don’t believe the Iranian leadership now thinks that your ‘all options are on the table’ threat as it relates to their nuclear program -- you don’t think that they have stopped taking that seriously?”

Obama answered: “I know they take it seriously.”

How do you know? I asked. “We have a high degree of confidence that when they look at 35,000 U.S. military personnel in the region that are engaged in constant training exercises under the direction of a president who already has shown himself willing to take military action in the past, that they should take my statements seriously,” he replied. “And the American people should as well, and the Israelis should as well, and the Saudis should as well.”

I asked the president if, in retrospect, he should have provided more help to Syria’s rebels earlier in their struggle. “I think those who believe that two years ago, or three years ago, there was some swift resolution to this thing had we acted more forcefully, fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the conflict in Syria and the conditions on the ground there,” Obama said. “When you have a professional army that is well-armed and sponsored by two large states who have huge stakes in this, and they are fighting against a farmer, a carpenter, an engineer who started out as protesters and suddenly now see themselves in the midst of a civil conflict -- the notion that we could have, in a clean way that didn’t commit U.S. military forces, changed the equation on the ground there was never true.”

He portrayed his reluctance to involve the U.S. in the Syrian civil war as a direct consequence of what he sees as America’s overly militarized engagement in the Muslim world: “There was the possibility that we would have made the situation worse rather than better on the ground, precisely because of U.S. involvement, which would have meant that we would have had the third, or, if you count Libya, the fourth war in a Muslim country in the span of a decade.”

...

 We also spent a good deal of time talking about the unease the U.S.'s Sunni Arab allies feel about his approach to Iran, their traditional adversary. I asked the president, “What is more dangerous: Sunni extremism or Shia extremism?”

I found his answer revelatory. He did not address the issue of Sunni extremism. Instead he argued in essence that the Shiite Iranian regime is susceptible to logic, appeals to self-interest and incentives.

“I’m not big on extremism generally,” Obama said. “I don’t think you’ll get me to choose on those two issues. What I’ll say is that if you look at Iranian behavior, they are strategic, and they’re not impulsive. They have a worldview, and they see their interests, and they respond to costs and benefits. And that isn’t to say that they aren’t a theocracy that embraces all kinds of ideas that I find abhorrent, but they’re not North Korea. They are a large, powerful country that sees itself as an important player on the world stage, and I do not think has a suicide wish, and can respond to incentives.”

This view puts him at odds with Netanyahu's understanding of Iran. In an interview after he won the premiership, the Israeli leader described the Iranian leadership to me as “a messianic apocalyptic cult.”

I asked Obama if he understood why his policies make the leaders of Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries nervous: “I think that there are shifts that are taking place in the region that have caught a lot of them off guard,” he said. "I think change is always scary."

Below is a complete transcript of our conversation. I’ve condensed my questions. The president’s answers are reproduced in full.

read the interview >>

A new (order) Ukraine? Assessing the relevance of Ukraine’s far right in an EU perspective

A new (order) Ukraine? Assessing the relevance of Ukraine’s far right in an EU perspective

    Friday, February 28, 2014   No comments

by Cas Mudde

The Euromaidan ‘revolution’ will undoubtedly remain one of the key political events of 2014. Most domestic and foreign observers were completely taken by surprise by the events that followed President Viktor Yanukovych’ decision not to sign an integration treaty with the European Union (EU) in November 2013. While the initial demonstrations in downtown Kiev were somewhat expected, few had ever thought that they could spiral so out of control that, just 3 months later, a democratically elected government with one of the most popular politicians in the country was forced out of power.

Euromaidan has also been interesting in terms of the propaganda battle that has been fought in the traditional and social media. As is now standard for ‘revolutions’ in the twenty first century, activists were quick to set up several Facebook pages, Twitter accounts, and other websites to provide their own positive view of the ‘revolution,’ countering the negative reports from the official Ukrainian media and, particularly, the largely Kremlin-controlled Russian media. They were very successful in disseminating their message, in part through networks of sympathizers in the west (including Ukrainian émigré communities in North America and post-Soviet scholars across the globe).

One of the main struggles has been over the importance of ‘fascists’ in the Euromaidan. Almost from the beginning the pro-Kremlin media emphasized the importance of ‘Ukrainian fascists’ among the anti-government demonstrators, and within days the whole uprising was to be portrayed as ‘fascist.’ This was to be expected, as both Soviet and post-Soviet Russian elites have tended to equate Ukrainian nationalism with fascism, linking any and every anti-Soviet or anti-Russian movement to the infamous Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) of Stepan Bandera, which (temporarily) collaborated with Nazi Germany in a misguided attempt to gain Ukrainian independence from Stalin’s brutal Soviet regime.

At the same time, most domestic and foreign sympathizers of ‘Euromaidan’ have minimalized the importance of the far right, arguing that Euromaidan was a genuine democratic and pro-European uprising in which far right elements were insignificant.

Euromaidan became the latest cause of western celebrities, from Archbishop of New York Cardinal Dolan to actor George Clooney, and academics, from Andrew Arato to the inevitable Slavoj Žižek. Much more surprising, however, was that some of the same scholars who had been warning us against the rise of the far right in pre-Euromaidan Ukraine, were now scolding us for exaggerating the importance of the far right in Euromaidan.

Even worse, any specific emphasis on far right elements within Euromaidan would lead to “Russian imperialism-serving effects.” Arguing by and large that they should be the only ones to judge the situation in Ukraine, given that they were the (only) “experts on Ukrainian nationalism,” these scholars declared Euromaidan “a liberationist and not extremist mass action of civil disobedience.”

Now that the ‘revolution’ is supposedly won, and the EU is ready to embrace the new Ukrainian government, and invest at least one billion euros in the ‘revolutionized’ country, it is time to reinvestigate the question of far right influence in Ukraine. After all, the EU has always been an outspoken critic of far right parties and politicians. In fact, only last month EU Commissioner Cecilia Malmström declared publically: “The biggest threat [for the EU] right now comes from violent right-wing extremism.”

read more >>

We can get rid of Assad or fight al-Qaeda, but we can’t do both

We can get rid of Assad or fight al-Qaeda, but we can’t do both

    Friday, February 28, 2014   No comments

For the past three years, when seeking enlightenment about the Syrian crisis, I have often talked to Alastair Crooke, a former MI6 officer. Mr Crooke, who left government service a decade ago after a long career, now runs a think tank called Conflicts Forum, which maintains contact with organisations such as Hizbollah and governments such as Iran, when official contact has been broken off.

I have learnt to respect and trust Mr Crooke, who has the invaluable habit of being right. When the British and American governments both claimed that President Assad of Syria would fall within weeks, he told me this was wishful thinking. When Western governments hailed the Syrian rebels as a democratic movement of national liberation, he said: hang on a moment. At the heart of the rebellion, he pointed out, was a group of armed gangs funded by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, dedicated to the establishment of a militant Sunni caliphate across the Middle East. He uttered this warning right at the start of the Syrian conflict, and at last the penny is (ever so painfully) beginning to drop in Whitehall and Washington.

So when Conflicts Forum invited me to a seminar in Beirut, I accepted with alacrity. It was over the weekend in an otherwise deserted seaside hotel. Lebanon, so prosperous and thriving when I was here four years ago, now conveys an air of desolate menace, as the country struggles to accommodate more than a million Syrian refugees. Parts of the country, including the second city of Tripoli, are increasingly dominated by jihadists.

At the seminar, there was a different world view to the one normally presented in the British media, and a more exotic cast of characters. Mr Crooke had assembled an adviser to President Putin, several Iranian diplomats, as well as representatives from Hizbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad – all three organisations labelled as terrorists by Western governments.

To many Telegraph readers, this might sound like a rogues’ gallery. But what they had to say was very interesting. Everyone there took for granted that President Assad has won the war, though they admitted that there may be some time to go before it ends. In the north, they said, the rebels have turned on each other. A crucial battle is now being fought at Qalamoun, in the west. The Syrian army and rebel forces are engaged in a ferocious battle for this strategic ridge, which controls the all-important supply line between Lebanon and rebel territory. We were told that the Battle of Qalamoun was all over bar the shouting, and that it will fall to Assad’s forces quite soon.

read more >>

The Reason Behind All Wars Is Egoism

The Reason Behind All Wars Is Egoism

    Tuesday, February 18, 2014   No comments

American academic and peace advocate Prof. Michael Nagler believes that non-violent activism is the best means to challenge the hegemonic powers and hold responsible those who commit acts of violence against the defenseless civilians or restrict their personal freedoms.

According to Prof. Michael Nagler, the Occupy Wall Street movement was a popular uprising against the greediness and materialism of the influential 1 percent that controls and runs the media, multinational corporations and interest groups.

Regarding the future of the peaceful, non-violent movements in the United States and other parts of the world, Prof. Nagler said, “I can’t predict what will actually happen, but I can predict with certainty that to the extent these movements learn and practice nonviolence in the right spirit, they will succeed to exactly that extent. And I can say with equal certainty that there is no other way. Governments that recognize this reality and have the courage and dignity to respond to such nonviolent movements will save themselves and the rest of the world enormous suffering.”

Prof. Michael N. Nagler is a prominent American peace activist and a Professor Emeritus at University of California, Berkeley. Since 2008, he has served as the co-chair of the Peace and Justice Studies Association. Currently, he is the president of the Metta Center for Nonviolence Education, a public organization which is dedicated to raising public awareness of nonviolence and keeping activists informed. Nagler is a proponent of the Indian independence leader Mahatma Gandhi and has won the 2007 Jamnalal Bajaj International Award for Promoting Gandhian Values Outside India. Nagler is the author of 2001 book “The Search For A Nonviolent Future.”

Fars News Agency had the opportunity to conduct an exclusive interview with Prof. Nagler regarding the importance of nonviolence and peaceful resistance, the Occupy Wall Street movement as one of the significant nonviolent endeavors of the recent years in the United States and the military expeditions of the Western powers in the Middle East. What follows is the text of the interview.

Q: Why do you think the Occupy Wall Street movement emerged and turned from a nationwide protest against the economic policies of the administration into a movement that challenged the different aspects of the US governance, including its foreign policy and military expeditions in the Middle East?

read more >>

Gradual reforms fail in Morocco

Gradual reforms fail in Morocco

    Sunday, February 16, 2014   No comments

by Nagham Assaad 

 
Morocco was not immune to the popular movement witnessed in the Arab region following the outbreak of the Tunisian revolution in December 2010. At this time three years ago, the February 20 Movement was leading mass demonstrations in various cities in Morocco. During these demonstrations, they raised slogans that varied between constitutional, political, social and economic priorities.

In an attempt to protect his throne from the winds of what has become known as the "Arab Spring," King Mohammed VI pre-empted any attempt at a revolution. Thus, he gave a now famous speech on March 9, 2011, a month after the start of the popular movement, in which he put in place an agenda for reform, including the adoption of constitutional amendments.

Yet, three years after the start of the popular movement, it seems that the idea of "gradual reform" has fallen, and perhaps this is why the February 20 movement has intensified its work to restore its spirit.

The issue of reform was not something new to Moroccan society, and it was not the product of the popular movement in February 2011. The wave of change was present between late 2009 and early 2010, which constituted a period of resentment at the popular level. This was not because of rampant corruption and the supremacy of the "Makhzen" (the ruling elite) alone, but also because 2009 was the year of the 10-year evaluation of the king coming to power. This evaluation was shocking, given the hopes that were pinned on the political will of the new king in the process of building democracy.

Thus, the discussions that followed the Feb. 20 protests in 2011, and the previous changes in other Arab countries, had strongly pushed the issue of reform to the forefront and contributed to raising the ceiling of demands and accelerating the pace of the popular movement.

The "famous" speech

The constitutional amendments of 2011, which were put to a popular referendum, would not have been done at the same speed or with the same formula had it not been for regional conditions and the popular movement that began with the emergence of the February 20 movement.

Mohammed VI was able to absorb the anger of the street through the "proactive reform model," in which he announced significant reforms and gave people hope through the use of resonating words such as change, democracy, reform, institutions and accountability. The approved constitutional amendments led to early legislative elections on Nov. 25, 2011. These elections resulted in a big win for the Islamic Justice and Development Party, which presided over a new coalition government.

Despite the above, the regime later demonstrated that it would not stop its traditional authoritarian practices in terms of dealing with both the press and the demonstrations, which continued strongly in almost all major cities of Morocco. The peak of these demonstrations occurred on the "National Day of Protest" in April 2011, when more than 800,000 Moroccans demonstrated in 106 cities and villages. This was in addition to demonstrations in 10 European and US cities, according to statistics from the National Council to Support the February 20 movement.

Hovering

Do the new constitutional reforms in Morocco represent a real change, or are they just "hovering" in the same place?

The former director of the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Institute, British researcher Marina Ottaway, confirms that the constitution that was drafted "falls into the category of constitutions granted to the nation by the king, rather than those crafted by a representative organization embodying popular sovereignty." This is because it was drafted by a commission of experts appointed by the king, rather than an elected constituent assembly or another representative body.

Ottaway, however, stressed that the constitution "undoubtedly broadens the power of parliament, allowing it to pass laws on most issues; it takes steps toward protecting the independence of the judiciary; and it increases the role of a number of independent commissions."

Yet she also noted, "What it fails to do clearly and unequivocally is reduce the power of the king." On the contrary, "the new constitution reserves for the king three areas as his exclusive domain: religion, security issues and strategic major policy choices. In addition, the king will remain the supreme arbiter among political forces. Under those rubrics, the king could very well control all important decisions, if he so chooses."

The royal palace regains its iron fist

On July 1, 2011, a referendum was held on the new Moroccan constitution, amid calls by the February 20 movement for a boycott, claiming that it enhances the absolute rule [of the king] and would not eliminate corruption. Nevertheless, the constitution passed with 98% of the vote.

Moroccan researcher Said Salmi said that the referendum "was disappointing. The state did not stand on the sidelines, and the king called on the people to vote 'yes.' He also gave orders to imams of mosques to dedicate a sermon to calling on the people to vote in favor of the constitution. Chapters of the constitution were changed the night before the referendum, and the king committed violations multiple times."

Shortly after the referendum, on Nov. 25, 2011, legislative elections were held in Morocco. The Justice and Development Party, which gives priority to Islamic reference in its work, won a large number of seats, enabling it to lead the government — headed by Abdelilah Benkirane — and receive 12 ministerial portfolios.

However, according to Salmi, the Benkirane government "quickly succumbed to corrupt lobbies and, instead of confrontation, preferred to take the easier route, adopting a demagogic populist rhetoric." He noted, "Under these circumstances, the royal palace regained its iron fist over all institutions."

Given that the Benkirane government had adopted a policy of "a deaf ear toward suggestions, solutions and alternatives," the Istiqlal Party withdrew from the government and moved to the ranks of the opposition. They considered the government to be "the worst in the history of modern Morocco," especially given that Morocco dropped three places in the rankings released by Transparency International in the field of fighting bribery.

"Pleasure marriage" between "Islamists" and "liberals"

The Benkirane government was appointed to a second term in 2013, following an alliance that observers described as a "pleasure marriage" between the Islamic Justice and Development Party and the National Rally of Independents, which is close to the authorities. During the Benkirane government's monthly accountability meeting on Jan. 4, there was a storm of accusations and counteraccusations between the government and opposition parties. Benkirane accused members of the Istiqlal Party, which had resigned from the government, of smuggling large sums of money out of Morocco.

In a precedent, the secretary-general of the Istiqlal Party, Hamid Chabat, announced that his party had decided to file a lawsuit against the head of the government, with the aim of [making the judiciary] reconsider the [Justice and Development] Party and its leaders. Chabat stressed that the goal of the lawsuit was to push Benkirane to act as a "real" head of state in the future.

Chabat stressed that the leaderships of the Istiqlal and Socialist Union parties are thinking about filing a lawsuit against anyone who mixes politics with Islamic preaching. He called on the Justice and Development Party to abandon its links to the Unity and Reform movement, and said that if it does not do this the state must dissolve the party, given its links to one of the Muslim Brotherhood's international associations.

Heavy criticism … and Benkirane acknowledges inability

In late 2013, King Mohammed VI strongly criticized the Benkirane government's management, holding it responsible for the decline in the reform of the education sector. The leader of the opposition Socialist Union of Popular Forces Party, Driss Lachgar, criticized the performance of the Moroccan government nearly two years after its formation, calling on it to open an investigation into the money smuggling and corruption cases.

On Jan. 12, activists from the Amazigh Youda movement organized the largest march in the movement's history, condemning the policy of procrastination that the state has been using in dealing with Amazigh demands. The movement also called for trying those involved in cases of corruption, abuse of power and looting of public money, as well as for enabling all citizens to have access to social services and improving these services. Moreover, activists said that [the government] should ensure a decent life for citizens by reducing the cost of living and increasing the minimum wage.

This is only the tip of the iceberg of the movements, which pushed Benkirane to acknowledge — albeit belatedly — the [government's] inability to address rampant bribery and corruption, blaming unnamed parties "that defend some corrupt people affiliated with them."

The dynamism of Feb. 20

In the midst of these developments and transformations, the February 20 movement had lost its vitality and entered into a phase of "intensive care," waiting for the announcement of its final death, as some researchers noted. But that did not prevent observers from stressing that the reform process initiated by Morocco was thanks to this bold protest movement.

Hamza Mahfouz, a February 20 activist, told As-Safir that what Morocco witnessed was a "popular uprising" and it will continue as long as the demands raised by the movement have not been achieved. He added the movement will continue to protest "despite the violent attacks it has been subjected to from official authorities, and despite the fall of 11 martyrs and the arrest of 58 members."

"Some Moroccans have hesitated in supporting the movement — affected by the bloody events that occurred in Libya, Yemen and Syria — and some supported the reforms that were offered, for fear of slipping toward a democratic transition through violence. But, if we look at the dynamism of the movement, there is no doubt that the February 20 movement is still strongly active in the various events happening in Morocco, both on the political and cultural levels. And the movement is still capable of being prepared in certain moments," he added.

Mahfouz concludes by saying, "On February 20, the third anniversary of the establishment of the movement, every city will take action in a way it deems appropriate. Many cities have decided to hold marches to revive demands and remind [the people] that the solution to most of Morocco's problems is a true democracy and the re-adoption of the constituent movement."
________

Assafir

Syria's road to peace is littered with our errors; The Geneva II peace conference has noble aims, but its flaws are obvious with Iran, Hezbollah and Russia absent

Syria's road to peace is littered with our errors; The Geneva II peace conference has noble aims, but its flaws are obvious with Iran, Hezbollah and Russia absent

    Monday, January 27, 2014   No comments

Editorials from the Observer

The third anniversary of the start of the Egyptian revolution is an appropriate moment to consider the lessons of what was once – too hopefully, perhaps – dubbed the "Arab spring". It was briefly hailed as the region's equivalent of the fall of communism in Europe in 1989; these days the closest historical equivalent seems like 1848 – the so-called Year of Revolutions.

That is certainly most true in Egypt, where the revolution that started three years ago this weekend has been followed in quick order by counter-revolution – as occurred across Europe in 1848 – with the reimposition by the military and its supporters of the same autocratic "deep state" over which Hosni Mubarak once presided.

The view from Cairo is grim. On Friday a wave of bombs struck the capital, bringing the simmering violence already visible in the northern Sinai to the country's very centre. The present regime has fostered a climate of fear that has seen activists, Muslim Brotherhood leaders, and journalists targeted and thrown in jail, often on trumped-up charges.

The picture is also grim in Libya and Syria. The western-led intervention that toppled Libya's Colonel Gaddafi has produced a weak, violent and fractured state whose problems led to the dangerous destabilisation of a neighbour, as happened in the case of Mali.

Syria too has become embroiled in a long and bloody civil war that has led to a massive displacement of refugees to neighbouring countries, fuelled a proxy conflict between Shia and Sunni in the region and been an exacerbating factor in the increasing violence in neighbouring Lebanon and Iraq.

read more >>

Egypt: protesters killed on anniversary of anti-Mubarak revolt; at least 54 reported dead in clashes across the country as thousands also rally in support of army-led authorities

Egypt: protesters killed on anniversary of anti-Mubarak revolt; at least 54 reported dead in clashes across the country as thousands also rally in support of army-led authorities

    Sunday, January 26, 2014   No comments

At least 54 people have been reported dead in clashes with anti-government protesters in Egypt on the third anniversary of the uprising that culminated in the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak as president.

Thousands of Egyptians also rallied in support of the army-led authorities, underlining the country's deep political divisions.

The majority of the deaths were in Cairo, according to the health ministry. Security forces lobbed teargas and fired in the air to try to prevent anti-government demonstrators from reaching Tahrir Square, the symbolic heart of the 2011 uprising, where government supporters called for the head of the military, General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, to run for the presidency.

Armoured personnel carriers were deployed to try to keep order and anyone entering Tahrir had to pass through a metal detector.

read more >>

The Free Syrian Army began as a simple group of fighters battling Assad. But Ruth Sherlock, in Antakya, finds their mission is now making millions from bribery and extortion

The Free Syrian Army began as a simple group of fighters battling Assad. But Ruth Sherlock, in Antakya, finds their mission is now making millions from bribery and extortion

    Sunday, December 01, 2013   No comments

The Free Syrian Army commander leant against the door of his four-wheel drive BMW X5 with tinted windows and watched as his men waded through the river on the Syrian border moving the barrels of smuggled petroleum to Turkey.

Feeling the smooth wedge of American bank notes he had just been given in exchange, he was suddenly proud of everything he had become.

In three short years he had risen from peasant to war lord: from a seller of cigarettes on the street of a provincial village to the ruler of a province, with a rebel group to man his checkpoints and control these lucrative smuggling routes.

The FSA, a collection of tenuously coordinated, moderately Islamic, rebel groups was long the focus of the West’s hopes for ousting President Bashar al-Assad.

But in northern Syria, the FSA has now become a largely criminal enterprise, with commanders more concerned about profits from corruption, kidnapping and theft than fighting the regime, according to a series of interviews with The Sunday Telegraph.

read more >>

Disillusionment Grows Among Syrian Opposition as Fighting Drags On

Disillusionment Grows Among Syrian Opposition as Fighting Drags On

    Friday, November 29, 2013   No comments

DAMASCUS, Syria — In a terrace cafe within earshot of army artillery, a 28-year-old graduate student wept as she confessed that she had stopped planning antigovernment protests and delivering medical supplies to rebel-held towns.

Khaled, 33, a former protester who fled Damascus after being tortured and fired from his bank post, quit his job in Turkey with the exile opposition, disillusioned and saying that he wished the uprising “had never happened.”

In the Syrian city of Homs, a rebel fighter, Abu Firas, 30, recently put down the gun his wife had sold her jewelry to buy, disgusted with his commanders, who, he said, focus on enriching themselves. Now he finds himself trapped under government shelling, broke and hopeless.

“The ones who fight now are from the side of the regime or the side of the thieves,” he said in a recent interview via Skype. “I was stupid and naïve,” he added. “We were all stupid.”

Even as President Bashar al-Assad of Syria racks up modest battlefield victories, this may well be his greatest success to date: wearing down the resolve of some who were committed to his downfall. People have turned their backs on the opposition for many different reasons after two and a half years of fighting, some disillusioned with the growing power of Islamists among rebels, some complaining of corruption, others just exhausted with a conflict that shows no signs of abating.

But the net effect is the same, as some of the Syrians who risked their lives for the fight are effectively giving up, finding themselves in a kind of checkmate born of Mr. Assad’s shrewdness and their own failures — though none interviewed say they are willing to return to his fold.

Their numbers are impossible to measure, and there remain many who vow to keep struggling. Yet a range of Mr. Assad’s opponents, armed and unarmed, inside and outside Syria, tell of a common experience: When protests began, they thought they were witnessing the chance for a new life. They took risks they had never dreamed of taking. They lost jobs, houses, friends and relatives, suffered torture and hunger, saw their neighborhoods destroyed. It was all they could do, yet it was not enough.

What finally forced them to the sidelines, they say, were the disarray and division on their side, the government’s deft exploitation of their mistakes, and a growing sense that there is no happy ending in sight. Some said they came to believe that the war could be won only by those as violent and oppressive as Mr. Assad, or worse.

Such conclusions have been expressed by more and more people in recent months, in interviews in Damascus, the Syrian capital; Lebanon; and Turkey and via Skype across rebel-held areas in Syria. Many more fighters say they continue mainly because quitting would leave them feeling guilty toward other fighters.

read more >>

Why Did Saudi Arabia Refuse to Join the UN Security Council? The nation seems to be refusing the opportunity to vote on the very issues it’s concerned about

Why Did Saudi Arabia Refuse to Join the UN Security Council? The nation seems to be refusing the opportunity to vote on the very issues it’s concerned about

    Wednesday, October 23, 2013   No comments

In an unprecedented move last Friday, Saudi Arabia turned down an offer by the United Nations to sit on the Security Council for two years as a non-permanent member. No country has ever been offered this opportunity and refused to accept.

Why did Saudi Arabia turn down the seat on the Security Council?

Saudi Arabia rejected the offer claiming frustration at United Nations’ ineffectiveness regarding the Middle East and solving conflicts around the globe. In a revelatory statement released by the Saudi Foreign Ministry, they accused the UN Security Council of “double standards” that “prevent it from carrying out its duties and assuming its responsibilities in keeping world peace.” Calling for reform, they highlighted the United Nations’ “failure to find a solution” for both the Palestinian cause and the current civil war in Syria. 

The Saudis had supported the American plan for a retaliatory military strike after the Syrian government’s deadly chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians in August. However, the United States opted for a diplomatic option that resulted in a UN Security Council resolution that did not involve military intervention. Saudi Arabia was disappointed and expressed their anger through this denial of Security Council membership.

read more >>

What to Make of Saudi Hand-Wringing: Troubling and uncertain times for Saudi diplomacy

What to Make of Saudi Hand-Wringing: Troubling and uncertain times for Saudi diplomacy

    Thursday, October 17, 2013   No comments

These are troubling and uncertain times for Saudi diplomacy. A string of regional upsets and friction with the United States has cast the kingdom into rocky, uncharted waters. Washington’s support of the Islamist government in Egypt and its response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria elicited outrage and accusations of U.S. unreliability and even betrayal from Riyadh. Then came the slight warming in U.S.-Iranian relations—highlighted by the unprecedented phone call between U.S. President Barack Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. That mild rapprochement brought to the fore an old specter: an U.S.-Iranian breakthrough that marginalizes the Gulf states and erodes their long-standing position as beneficiaries of U.S.-Iranian hostility.

On the editorial pages of Saudi newspapers, columnists have sounded familiar themes with new levels of intensity: The Gulf is being shut out of regional negotiations. The United States was duped on Syria and Iran. The Gulf needs to adopt a more muscular, unilateral approach to safeguard its own interests, and it should cultivate new security patrons to compensate for U.S. capriciousness, perfidy, and retreat from the region.

But what does this latest round of hand-wringing, protest, and introspection really mean in terms of new directions in Saudi foreign policy?

read more >>

John Kerry reveals Arab countries have offered to PAY America to carry out full-scale invasion of Syria

John Kerry reveals Arab countries have offered to PAY America to carry out full-scale invasion of Syria

    Thursday, September 05, 2013   No comments

Secretary of State John Kerry said during a hearing Wednesday in the House of Representatives that counties in the Arab world have offered to foot the entire bill for a U.S. military mission that destroys the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria.
'With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assist, the answer is profoundly yes,' Kerry said. 'They have. That offer is on the table.'
Kerry, with a cadre of anti-war activists sitting behind him and holding red-painted hands aloft in protest, declined to name the countries that have proposed opening their purses.

Read more >>

Erdoğan says history will curse Al-Azhar Sheikh for endorsing coup

Erdoğan says history will curse Al-Azhar Sheikh for endorsing coup

    Sunday, August 25, 2013   No comments

Turkey's prime minister has slammed Egypt's leading Islamic cleric for endorsing the military coup in Egypt, saying that history will curse scholars like him.
Ahmet al-Tayed, Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar, backed an army-sponsored roadmap on July 3 which removed former President Mohammed Morsi, suspended the constitution and called for early presidential and parliamentary elections.

The leader of Cairo's ancient seat of Sunni Muslim learning made a brief statement following an announcement by the head of the armed forces that deposed the elected president, endorsing the military coup. 

Speaking at a university named after him in Rize, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said a scholar is the one who doesn't compromise from his honor no matter what the consequences are, in an apparent reference to Al-Azhar Sheikh. He said if a politician like him tells a scholar something that is not true, the scholar should reject this.

Erdoğan said being silent in the face of events in Egypt means taking on a tremendous burden. He complained that scholars and universities failed to voice their opposition to the military coup in Egypt, despite expectations for the opposite. He provided the sheikh of Al-Azhar as an example, as he endorsed the Egypt coup.

read more >>

Tunisia opposition starts week of protests calling for resignation of Islamist-led government

Tunisia opposition starts week of protests calling for resignation of Islamist-led government

    Sunday, August 25, 2013   No comments

TUNIS, Tunisia — Thousands of Tunisians have demonstrated in front of the national assembly calling for the resignation of the Islamist-led government.

Saturday night's demonstration kicked off a planned week of protests by a coalition of opposition parties calling for the departure of the government because of what they say is its inability to guarantee security and the economy of the country.

The National Salvation Front includes right- and left-wing political parties demanding the current Islamist-led government be replaced by a technocratic cabinet to organize new elections.

Protesters chanted "we tried you, you failed, now leave."

Tunisia's main labor union has been mediating between the moderate Islamist Ennahda Party running the government and the opposition.

PORTRAIT OF A CAIRO LIBERAL AS A MILITARY BACKER

PORTRAIT OF A CAIRO LIBERAL AS A MILITARY BACKER

    Tuesday, August 20, 2013   No comments

In Cairo Friday morning, before the midday call to prayer and an afternoon of protest marches that resolved in violence, chaos, and the overnight siege of a mosque, I jumped into a taxi and slipped across the Nile into the quiet, semi-suburban neighborhood of Dokki. I was there to meet with Mohammed Aboul-Ghar, a seventy-three-year-old academic and politician who has been a leading figure in Egypt’s liberal establishment, and now represents one of the most confounding elements of the country’s current crisis: the wholesale alignment of old-guard liberals with the military.

Aboul-Ghar’s reputation in pro-democracy politics is well earned. In 2004, during the era of Hosni Mubarak, Aboul-Ghar co-founded the March 9th organization, a group of professors who bravely fought against the interference of state-security services into the operations of Egypt’s universities. In the run up to the 2011 revolution, he was an organizer and spokesman for the National Association for Change, an anti-authoritarian organization led by Mohammed ElBaradei, the Nobel Prize Winner and Egypt’s most prominent liberal politician. And after Mubarak finally fell, he helped create what many viewed as the most substantial political party for liberals, the Social Democratic Party. That fall, as a temporary military regime ruled Egypt, I had met with Aboul-Ghar, who happily assured me that the military would soon be leaving the management of the country to civilians. “My feeling is that the military wants to have a safe retreat,” he said then. “A safe retreat and all their previous privileges.”

read more >>

Propaganda Trap: Egyptian Elite Succumb to the Hate Virus

Propaganda Trap: Egyptian Elite Succumb to the Hate Virus

    Saturday, August 17, 2013   No comments

Just weeks ago, they decried police violence and the heavy-handed state apparatus. Now, after over 600 members of the Muslim Brotherhood were killed on Wednesday, the Egyptian elite is silent. Those who dare to voice empathy are given a hostile reception.

Egyptian Amir Salim has the classic profile of a revolutionary. As a politically engaged young lawyer, he specialized in human rights cases, a focus which earned him nine trips to jail under Hosni Mubarak. When the revolt against the aging despot gained traction in 2011, Salim quickly became one of its spokesmen. After Mubarak's fall, he founded an organization which promulgated the creation of a civilian state free from military meddling. In a book published in 2012, he dissected the structures of Mubarak's police state.

Now, the same police that Salim attacked so vehemently in his book, has responded to demonstrations in Cairo with shocking brutality. At least 623 people, the vast majority of them civilians, were killed in street battles earlier this week.
And what is Salim doing? Sitting in a popular café in the Cairo city center, he says things like this: "The Muslim Brothers are a sickness and the police have to eradicate them." And: "The police and the army were only defending themselves." He adds that "the problem will only have been solved when the last Muslim Brother who causes problems is locked away in prison." When asked about the obvious human rights violations perpetrated on the dead and wounded, he said: "And what about the rights of those who live near the protest camps? What about their right to be able to enjoy their apartment?"

Welcome to Egypt under General Abd al-Fattah al-Sissi. The country is so polarized that people are no longer able to feel any empathy whatsoever for others. It is a country in which the smartest and most critically thinking intellectuals are now spewing little more than propaganda, with people on both sides of the deep political divide displaying a penchant for simplification, vilification and agitation. Those who ask critical questions run the risk of being physically attacked, an experience that many foreign journalists have encountered in recent days

read more >>

Murdering the Wretched of the Earth

Murdering the Wretched of the Earth

    Saturday, August 17, 2013   No comments

Radical Islam is the last refuge of the Muslim poor. The mandated five prayers a day give the only real structure to the lives of impoverished believers. The careful rituals of washing before prayers in the mosque, the strict moral code, along with the understanding that life has an ultimate purpose and meaning, keep hundreds of millions of destitute Muslims from despair. The fundamentalist ideology that rises from oppression is rigid and unforgiving. It radically splits the world into black and white, good and evil, apostates and believers. It is bigoted and cruel to women, Jews, Christians and secularists, along with gays and lesbians. But at the same time it offers to those on the very bottom of society a final refuge and hope. The massacres of hundreds of believers in the streets of Cairo signal not only an assault against a religious ideology, not only a return to the brutal police state of Hosni Mubarak, but the start of a holy war that will turn Egypt and other poor regions of the globe into a caldron of blood and suffering.

read more >>