Qatar will continue to support terrorists in Syria with or without U.S.

Qatar will continue to support terrorists in Syria with or without U.S.

    Sunday, November 27, 2016   No comments

Summary: Fearing that the U.S. under Trump might abandon Syrian rebels, Qatar, which is known to have close connections to terrorist groups like Fath al-Sham--formerly known as al-Nusra Front, reassured its proxies in Syria that Qatar will continue to support them with or without U.S.

The  News:
Qatar will continue to arm Syrian rebels even if Donald Trump ends U.S. backing for the multinational effort, Doha's foreign minister said in an interview, signalling its determination to pursue a policy the U.S. President-elect may abandon.
...
The minister hit out at Egypt, normally a close Gulf Arab ally, for appearing to side with Assad, and criticised Iran for what he said was interference in the affairs of Arab states.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, whose flagging economy has received billions of dollars from Gulf states, has supported Russia's decision to bomb in support of Assad.

"For us unfortunately Egypt is supporting the regime ... We hope that they come back and be with us," he said. Support for Assad was the same as supporting terrorism, he said, "because he is a terrorist and he is on equal footing with Daesh".

Sheikh Mohammed chided Western politicians for using anti-Muslim and anti-refugee rhetoric in election campaigns, saying it was against the values the West had long stood for.

"Unfortunately these narratives ... will cause problems for decades because in Europe and the United States, the Muslim community is part of the texture of their society ... It will help them maybe to win the election but it will last for decades, it will create a problem within their communities. source

Israel's defense minister: Islamic State "enjoyed Turkish money for oil"

Israel's defense minister: Islamic State "enjoyed Turkish money for oil"

    Tuesday, January 26, 2016   No comments

Israel's defense minister said on Tuesday that Islamic State militants had been funded with 'Turkish money', an assertion that could hinder attempts to mend fences between the two countries after years of estrangement.

"It's up to Turkey, the Turkish government, the Turkish leadership, to decide whether they want to be part of any kind of cooperation to fight terrorism. This is not the case so far," Moshe Yaalon told reporters in Athens.

"As you know, Daesh (Islamic State) enjoyed Turkish money for oil for a very, very long period of time. I hope that it will be ended," Yaalon, a right-wing former armed forces chief, told reporters after meeting his Greek counterpart, Panos Kammenos. source

Stoking sectarian fires in the Middle East could be Saudi Arabia's biggest mistake

Stoking sectarian fires in the Middle East could be Saudi Arabia's biggest mistake

    Wednesday, January 06, 2016   No comments

Why stoking sectarian fires in the Middle East could be Saudi Arabia's biggest mistake

Patrick Cockburn

Saudi Arabia will be pleased that the furore over its execution of the Shia cleric Nimr al-Nimr is taking the form of a heightened confrontation with Iran and the Shia world as a whole. Insults and threats are exchanged and diplomatic missions closed. Sunni mosques are blown up in Shia-dominated areas of Iraq. The Saudi rulers are able to strengthen their leadership of a broad Sunni coalition against an Iranian-led Shia axis at home and abroad.

The motive for the mass execution of Sheikh Nimr and 46 others, many Sunni jihadists, was primarily domestic. The threat to the al-Saud family within Saudi Arabia comes from Sunni extremists in al-Qaeda and Isis and not from the Shia, who are only a majority in two provinces in the eastern region of the country. Furious denunciations by Shia communities and countries will do nothing but good to the reputation of the ruling family among the majority of Saudis.

Saudi Arabia and its fundamentalist Wahhabi variant of Sunni Islam has been blamed by many outside the kingdom as the ideological forbearer of Isis, but the real danger for the monarchy is that it should be seen at home as insufficiently zealous as defender of the faith.

...

All the same, there is a growing suspicion in the Middle East and beyond that the Saudi royal family is losing its traditional political touch which enabled it to survive over the past 70 years when other monarchies, along with once-powerful socialist and nationalist regimes, have long ago disappeared.

read more >>

Turkey’s silence on Saudi Arabia’s execution of Shiite cleric

Turkey’s silence on Saudi Arabia’s execution of Shiite cleric

    Tuesday, January 05, 2016   No comments

by MEHMET Y. YILMAZ

The Middle East has gone even deeper into turmoil since “our ally” Saudi Arabia, with which we recently established a “high-level strategic council,” executed a prominent Shiite cleric.

You will remember that Turkey and Qatar also signed a military deal a short while ago, and we will construct a military base in Qatar against the “common enemy.”

Considering the 3,600 km distance between Turkey and Qatar, I recently asked who could be this “common enemy.” It is not too difficult to find the answer. The only power that Qatar is afraid of is Iran.

Now, our “high-level strategic partner” Saudi Arabia is on the verge of war with Iran. They have cut diplomatic ties; harsh statements are flying in the air.

It would not be surprising to see Qatar getting involved in this verbal fight. Indeed, Bahrain cut its relations with Tehran yesterday.

Turkey is now in the midst of a conflict that should be of no interest. Turkey is in no position to either intervene to decrease the tension or to stand aside.

That is where we have ended up thanks to the Erdoğan-Davutoğlu duo’s foreign policy. We will all pay the price for them resorting to cheap campaign propaganda whenever critics warned “let’s not slide into Middle Eastern swamp.”

What is the reason behind the silence?

Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, the cleric who was executed in Saudi Arabia, had nothing to do with violence. In fact, he condemned violence and he was against all dictators in the Islamic world - including Bashar al–Assad.

In an interview with the BBC in 2011 he said he preferred “the roar of the word against authorities to weapons.”

“The weapon of the word is stronger than bullets, because the authorities profit from a battle with weapons,” he said.

Now, the execution of this cleric who preached peace could set off a period where only guns do the talking.

What I find strange is the fact that Turkey has remained silent up to now. It is silent about the killing of a cleric who has stood up to tyrants.

There is no word from a government that says it stands with all the oppressed, regardless of their identity. The Foreign Ministry is silent.

Isn’t this silence of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), which reacted so harshly against death sentences that were not even carried out in Egypt, perplexing?

If a Muslim cleric was executed in a Buddhist country, would they have stayed silent like this?

Why this silence? Is it because the killers this time are the Saudis? Or is it because the cleric is Shiite?  source

What do Iraqi Sunni want? ISIL and its allies have different agendas and different plans; but some want Sunni autonomous regions

What do Iraqi Sunni want? ISIL and its allies have different agendas and different plans; but some want Sunni autonomous regions

    Friday, June 20, 2014   No comments

Iraq is a country with competing ethnic and sectarian identities. Iraq is inhabited by Muslims, Christians, Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen, Azeris, Armenians, and dozens of or other religious and ethnic groups. The divide that is at play today is the Sunni, Shiite, Kurdish one. More than 65 percent of Iraqis are Shi`a. These Shi`as are of Arab, Kurdish, and Turkic ethnicities. 25 percent of Iraqis are Sunnis. These Sunnis are primarily Arab and Kurdish. About 10 percent are Non-Muslim minorities belonging to various ethnic groups as well.

The Sunni minority has ruled Iraq until the fall of Saddam's regime in 2003. Iraqi Shi`a were marginalized during Sunni rule and after the Iraq-Iran war, the marginalization tuned into discrimination, oppression, and persecution. Now, the once dominant Sunnis, are represented according to their numbers. Some are happy with that. But many do not want to be ruled by a "deviant" sect even if that sect is a majority of the population. ISIL represents that view and that is why they want to take the fight all the way to Karbala and Najaf. Other Sunnis want at least some of the power back even if it is over smaller territories.

Here is one articulation of Sunni demands:

 “Maliki must first be deposed,” said Mr Dabash. “Then we demand the fragmentation of Iraq into three autonomous regions, with Sunnis, Shia and Kurds sharing resources equally. And finally we need compensation for the one and half million Iraqis, most of them Sunnis, who have been killed at the hands of the Americans and the Maliki regime.” Source

The problems with Iraq are also historical, since the Ottoman days, when Sunnis were favored:

Sunnis had been favored during the Ottoman Empire, gaining more administrative experience and thus domination in government and the military. Dictatorships emerged as the only way to hold differing groups together, the last Iraqi dictator being Saddam Hussein. Sourse

Who’s Killing Pakistan’s Shia and Why?

Who’s Killing Pakistan’s Shia and Why?

    Monday, May 26, 2014   No comments

C. Christine Fair

According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, in 2013 nearly 700 Shia were killed and more than 1,000 were injured in more than 200 sectarian terrorist attacks. Over 90 percent of those attacks occurred in Quetta, Karachi, Kangu, Parachinar, Islamabad and Rawalpindi. Since the beginning of 2000, nearly 4,000 persons have been killed and 6,800 injured (see figure below).  Who is hunting Pakistan’s Shia and, most importantly, why?


The explanation for Pakistan’s deadly sectarian present lies in the communal politics of Pakistan’s pre-history and the subsequent decisions that Pakistani elites made in the early years about nation building in the new state.  The current path of violence and intolerance may have been paved well before Pakistan became independent in 1947.

Pakistan: Born to Other

As the British appetite for maintaining the Raj declined after World Wars I and II, it became increasingly clear that the declining imperial power would accede to mounting Indian nationalist demands to quit the subcontinent. However, it was not clear what political order would rise from the detritus of the erstwhile Raj.  Some Muslims associated with the All India Muslim League feared that, in a Hindu-majority state, Muslims would be subjected to separate and unequal status.  The Congress Party, which claimed to represent all groups in India and which enjoyed a pan-Indian presence, challenged these claims. However, some within the Congress Party increasingly began to evidence communal sentiments which further discomfited some Muslims in India.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who is...

read more >>