Middle East landscape rapidly changing

[Tony Baloney]

Robert Fisk: These are secular popular revolts – yet everyone is blaming religion

Sunday, 20 February 2011

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-these-are-secular-popular-revolts-ndash-yet-everyone-is-blaming-religion-2220134.html

Mubarak claimed that Islamists were behind the Egyptian revolution. Ben Ali said the same in Tunisia. King Abdullah of Jordan sees a dark and sinister hand – al-Qa'ida's hand, the Muslim Brotherhood's hand, an Islamist hand – behind the civil insurrection across the Arab world. Yesterday the Bahraini authorities discovered Hizbollah's bloody hand behind the Shia uprising there. For Hizbollah, read Iran. How on earth do well-educated if singularly undemocratic men get this thing so wrong? Confronted by a series of secular explosions – Bahrain does not quite fit into this bracket – they blame radical Islam. The Shah made an identical mistake in reverse. Confronted by an obviously Islamic uprising, he blamed it on Communists.

Bobbysocks Obama and Clinton have managed an even weirder somersault. Having originally supported the "stable" dictatorships of the Middle East – when they should have stood by the forces of democracy – they decided to support civilian calls for democracy in the Arab world at a time when the Arabs were so utterly disenchanted with the West's hypocrisy that they didn't want America on their side. "The Americans interfered in our country for 30 years under Mubarak, supporting his regime, arming his soldiers," an Egyptian student told me in Tahrir Square last week. "Now we would be grateful if they stopped interfering on our side." At the end of the week, I heard identical voices in Bahrain. "We are getting shot by American weapons fired by American-trained Bahraini soldiers with American-made tanks," a medical orderly told me on Friday. "And now Obama wants to be on our side?"

The events of the past two months and the spirit of anti-regime Arab insurrection – for dignity and justice, rather than any Islamic emirate – will remain in our history books for hundreds of years. And the failure of Islam's strictest adherents will be discussed for decades. There was a special piquancy to the latest footage from al-Qa'ida yesterday, recorded before the overthrow of Mubarak, that emphasised the need for Islam to triumph in Egypt; yet a week earlier the forces of secular, nationalist, honourable Egypt, Muslim and Christian men and women, had got rid of the old man without any help from Bin Laden Inc. Even weirder was the reaction from Iran, whose supreme leader convinced himself that the Egyptian people's success was a victory for Islam. It's a sobering thought that only al-Qa'ida and Iran and their most loathed enemies, the anti-Islamist Arab dictators, believed that religion lay behind the mass rebellion of pro-democracy protesters.

The bloodiest irony of all – which dawned rather slowly on Obama – was that the Islamic Republic of Iran was praising the democrats of Egypt while threatening to execute its own democratic opposition leaders.

Not, then, a great week for "Islamicism". There's a catch, of course. Almost all the millions of Arab demonstrators who wish to shrug off the cloak of autocracy which – with our Western help – has smothered their lives in humiliation and fear are indeed Muslims. And Muslims – unlike the "Christian" West – have not lost their faith. Under the stones and coshes of Mubarak's police killers, they counter-attacked, shouting "Allah akbar" for this was indeed for them a "jihad" – not a religious war but a struggle for justice. "God is Great" and a demand for justice are entirely consistent. For the struggle against injustice is the very spirit of the Koran.

In Bahrain we have a special case. Here a Shia majority is ruled by a minority of pro-monarchy Sunni Muslims. Syria, by the way, may suffer from "Bahrainitis" for the same reason: a Sunni majority ruled by an Alawite (Shia) minority. Well, at least the West – in its sagging support for King Hamad of Bahrain – can point to the fact that Bahrain, like Kuwait, has a parliament. It's a sad old beast, existing from 1973 to 1975 when it was dissolved unconstitutionally, and then reinvented in 2001 as part of a package of "reforms". But the new parliament turned out to be even more unrepresentative than the first. Opposition politicians were harassed by state security, and parliamentary boundaries were gerrymandered, Ulster-style, to make sure that the minority Sunnis controlled it. In 2006 and 2010, for example, the main Shia party in Bahrain gained only 18 out of 40 seats. Indeed, there is a distinctly Northern Ireland feel to Sunni perspectives in Bahrain. Many have told me that they fear for their lives, that Shia mobs will burn their homes and kill them.

All this is set to change. Control of state power has to be legitimised to be effective, and the use of live fire to overwhelm peaceful protest was bound to end in Bahrain in a series of little Bloody Sundays. Once Arabs learnt to lose their fear, they could claim the civil rights that Catholics in Northern Ireland once demanded in the face of RUC brutality. In the end, the British had to destroy Unionist rule and bring the IRA into joint power with Protestants. The parallels are not exact and the Shias do not (yet) have a militia, although the Bahraini government has produced photographs of pistols and swords – hardly a major weapon of the IRA – to support their contention that its opponents include "terrorists".

In Bahrain there is, needless to say, a sectarian as much as a secular battle, something that the Crown Prince unwittingly acknowledged when he originally said that the security forces had to suppress protests to prevent sectarian violence. It's a view held all too savagely by Saudi Arabia, which has a strong interest in the suppression of dissent in Bahrain. The Shias of Saudi Arabia might get uppity if their co-religionists in Bahrain overwhelm the state. Then we'll really hear the leaders of the Shia Islamic Republic of Iran crowing.

But these interconnected insurrections should not be seen in a simple ferment-in-the-Middle-East framework. The Yemeni uprising against President Saleh (32 years in power) is democratic but also tribal, and it won't be long before the opposition uses guns. Yemen is a heavily armed society, tribes with flags, nationalist-rampant. And then there is Libya.

Gaddafi is so odd, his Green Book theories – dispatched by Benghazi demonstrators last week when they pulled down a concrete version of this particular volume – so preposterous, his rule so cruel (and he's been running the place for 42 years) that he is an Ozymandias waiting to fall. His flirtation with Berlusconi – worse still, his cloying love affair with Tony Blair whose foreign secretary, Jack Straw, praised the Libyan lunatic's "statesmanship" – was never going to save him. Bedecked with more medals than General Eisenhower, desperate for a doctor to face-lift his sagging jowls, this wretched man is threatening "terrible" punishment against his own people for challenging his rule. Two things to remember about Libya: like Yemen, it's a tribal land; and when it turned against its Italian fascist overlords, it began a savage war of liberation whose brave leaders faced the hangman's noose with unbelievable courage. Just because Gaddafi is a nutter does not mean his people are fools.

So it's a sea-change in the Middle East's political, social, cultural world. It will create many tragedies, raise many hopes and shed far too much blood. Better perhaps to ignore all the analysts and the "think tanks" whose silly "experts" dominate the satellite channels. If Czechs could have their freedom, why not the Egyptians? If dictators can be overthrown in Europe – first the fascists, then the Communists – why not in the great Arab Muslim world? And – just for a moment – keep religion out of this.

I stopped reading at "Robert Fisk". you kind of know where it is going...

[PadraicHenryPearse]

good man Tony, don't try to get an insight into what is happening from all sides just make up your own mind and stick with that.........

[Puckoon]

From "all sides" php? Pull the other one. People talk about discussion on this thread but when it's one article after the other from the same side... Author even... How's that all sides? FFS Fisk has more posts on this board than half the posters!

[PadraicHenryPearse]

Puckoon, its amazing what you can find if you look, there are other websites, newspapers, news channels etc. out there , the world doesn't revolve around this thread and the GAA Board. They are the all sides i was referring to.

If someone put up an article i would read it regardless of the author or the percieved bias they have, if i felt the need to disagree with the content then i would but i won't be dismissing anything without reading it even something from Glen Beck who i dislike but am strangly drawn to watch.

[mylestheslasher]

Puckoon/tony. Could you tells us what bits of fisks article you disagree with or which "facts" he writes which are un-true. Also, if you know of any could you post the links to any articles on these revolutions from a journalist on the ground who has a different point of view to fisk. Thanks.

[give her dixie]

The latest article from Fisk is as good a summary on the latest developments as I have read. Especially the similarities to the days of old here at home. His last paragraph sums it all up well, and maybe it's his last line that is what people here have trouble getting their head around........ Strange that in the past weeks when hundreds of people have been murdered, 2 dictators overthrown, revolutions spreading to other countries, and people only want to have a pop at Robert Fisk? Have you no thoughts on the current situation yourselves?

Yesterday saw a brutal day in Libya, where reports of up to 100 people were murdered by thugs shipped into the region and paid byby Gaddafi. In Benghaza, machine gun fire mowed people down, killing scores and injuring hundreds. In Tunisia and Egypt the rubber bullets and tear gas was used 1st. Gaddafi just went straight to using live rounds. 42 years in power has certainly melted his brain, and his sense of humanity. (If he ever had any)....

However, he has plenty of oil, and with Tony Blair as one of his advisers, we all know what side the powerful leaders in the west will take. One thing we have come to see through history is that oil is more important than anyones human rights, and Libya is no different. It has Africa's largest reserves of oil, yet over 2/3's of the population live below the poverty line. Gaddafi and his family and friends pocket all the money.

In Bahrain, the protesters went back to Pearl Roundabout and have now taken over. Yesterday, while it was sealed off and surrounded by security, 2 young women broke through and confronted them with a Bahrain flag and flowers. It was an amazing scene, and the bravery they showed was just unreal. They said later that they were prepared to die in order to show the powers that be that they were not afraid anymore. Following the womens bravery, hunderds of people tore down the razor wire and burst through and re took Pearl Roundabout, and they are still there now.

The fallout from the decision of the US to support Israel's illegal settlement building has isolated the 2 states futher not only in the middle east, but across the world. This was a clear opportunity for the US to back up their claims of support for democracy and peace in the region, and instead, they showed that they dont care one bit. People all over the region know that they can't be trusted, and will not trust them or believe them in the coming weeks and months as they stick their nose in again. They have been sidelined, and will no doubt be froze out in the creation of new democratic countries in the region. They blew their chance to stand on the side of humanity.

[give her dixie]

With settlement resolution veto, Obama has joined Likud

An America that understands that the settlements are the obstacle should have joined in condemning them.
By Gideon Levy

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/with-settlement-resolution-veto-obama-has-joined-likud-1.344502

This weekend, a new member enrolled in Likud - and not just in the ruling party, but in its most hawkish wing. Located somewhere between Tzipi Hotovely and Danny Danon, U.S. President Barack Obama bypassed Dan Meridor and Michael Eitan on the right and weakened their position.

The first veto cast by the United States during Obama's term, a veto he promised in vain not to use as his predecessors did, was a veto against the chance and promise of change, a veto against hope. This is a veto that is not friendly to Israel; it supports the settlers and the Israeli right, and them alone.

The excuses of the American ambassador to the UN won't help, and neither will the words of thanks from the Prime Minister's Office: This is a step that is nothing less than hostile to Israel. America, which Israel depends on more than ever, said yes to settlements. That is the one and only meaning of its decision, and in so doing, it supported the enterprise most damaging to Israel.

Moreover, it did so at a time when winds of change are blowing in the Middle East. A promise of change was heard from America, but instead, it continued with its automatic responses and its blind support of Israel's settlement building. This is not an America that will be able to change its standing among the peoples of the region. And Israel, an international pariah, once again found itself supported only by America.

This should have disturbed every Israeli. Is that what we are? Alone and condemned? And all for the continuation of that worthless enterprise? Is it really worth the price? To hell with the UN and the whole world is against us?

We can't wrap ourselves in this hollow iron dome forever. We must open our eyes and understand that if no country, aside from weakening America, supports this caprice of ours, then something fundamental is wrong here.

Israel, which is condemned by the entire world but continues merrily on its way, is a country that is losing its connection to reality. It is also a country that will ultimately find itself left entirely to its fate. That is why America's decision harmed Israel's interests: It continued to blind and stupefy Israel into thinking it can go on this way forever.

A friendly U.S., concerned for Israel's fate, should have said no. An America that understands that the settlements are the obstacle should have joined in condemning them. A superpower that wants to make peace, at a time when Arab peoples are rising up against their regimes and against the U.S. and Israel, should have understood that it must change the old, bad rules of the game of blanket support for the ally addicted to its settlements.

A friendly America should have mobilized to wean Israel of its addiction Only it can do so, and it should have started, belatedly, at the Security Council on Friday.

But promises of change and of real concern for Israel are one thing, and diplomatic behavior is another: another automatic veto, as if nothing has changed. Obama or George W. Bush, there's no difference. When Ambassador Susan Rice said that the draft resolution risked hardening the positions of both sides and could encourage the parties to refrain from negotiations, she misled. She knows that what prevents negotiations and hardens positions is continued building in the settlements.

And when the Israeli Foreign Ministry said it is "peculiar that the Security Council should choose to consider one single aspect" of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations "while ignoring the wider scope of events in our region," it, too, misled. Do the Foreign Ministry's spokesmen really believe there is a serious party that would agree to Israel creating irreversible facts on the ground without let or hindrance?

And to call this "one single aspect?" Perhaps it is only one, but it is certainly the most destructive. And thus it is the one the world sought to condemn - and rightly so.

Moreover, this veto was not cast during ordinary days. These are days of boiling lava in the region. If there were a responsible government in Israel, it would have stopped settlement building long ago - not only to deflect fire from Israel, but to promote an agreement that has never been more vital for it.

If the U.S. had been a responsible superpower, it would have voted for the resolution on Friday to rouse Israel from its dangerous sleep. Instead, we got a hostile veto from Washington, shouts of joy from Jerusalem and a party that will end very badly for both.

[lawnseed]

gadaffis not going to back down he's slaughtering protesters by the hundred according to the bbc

[give her dixie]

Gaddafi has shut down the internet and has banned any foriegn journalists from entering Libya.
However, some footage has got out, and it's horrific. The phone calls to the people on the ground
are very tough to listen to as you can hear rapid machine gun fire going off in the background.

Human Rights Watch have confirmed that 173 people have now been murdered, however, that figure
is a lot higher according to people on the ground. It's going to be a tough few days in Libya, and no doubt
more protestors will die. However, they have taken a stand against Gaddafi, and there is no backing down for them now. They have seen Mubarak and Ben Ali go, and there is no reason to doubt that Gaddafi can go as well.

[lawnseed]

get ready europe for 100s of thousands of 'genuine' political refugees. i was surprised reading another post by the size of the populations in these north african countries 50millions etc thats nearly as many as the uk

[give her dixie]

'Clinton threatened to cancel aid to PA'

Palestinian President Abbas stresses PA won't boycott US, after Yasser Abed Rabbo slammed American mediation. Fatah element claims Obama told Abbas no other US president has done more to promote Palestinian issue

Elior Levy, Published:  02.19.11, 20:27
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4030816,00.html

While the Palestinians continue to express their anger over the US veto against a UN vote condemning Israel's settlement construction policy, new details have surfaced regarding the pre-veto discussions. Fatah elements claimed Saturday that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton threatened to halt financial aid should the Palestinian Authority not withdraw its draft from the Security Council's agenda. Nevertheless, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas stressed that the PA will not boycott the US.

Fatah, Hamas leaders incensed by decision to veto UN vote to condemn Israeli settlements, saying it reveals lie behind calls for democracy, freedom in Arab world. 'We'll appeal to General Assembly,' says PLO secretary.

A senior Fatah element told the Palestinian news agency Sama that Clinton threatened Abbas on Friday to cancel US aid. According to the source, US President Barack Obama told Abbas on Thursday night that no other American president has promoted the Palestinian issue more vigorously .

Following Yasser Abed Rabbo's statements against the US and his pledge to take the matter up to the General Assembly, Abbas stressed Saturday that the Palestinians do not wish to boycott the US administration but that they were interested in maintaining their rights and protecting their national interest.

The Palestinian president described the effort to gain the support of 14 members of the Security Council as a "diplomatic success."

Meanwhile, the US administration has taken a series of precautionary steps for fear their envoys in the region will be targeted. The US Consulate in Jerusalem has banned US representatives from entering Jericho, driving on West Bank roads and visiting the Allenby Border Crossing in the next three days.

A US source said that no violence targeting US envoys in the West Bank has been recorded as of yet.

Tawfik Tirawi, a member of the Fatah central committee, called for a day of rage to be held in the West Bank next Friday and said the veto had revealed the US's true face.

Palestinian outrage was also noted on the streets. "Hateful Obama, the settlements won't last," hundreds of Palestinians chanted during a protest in Nablus. Several hundred demonstrators marched towards the separation fence in the Tulkarem area and hurled stones at IDF soldiers. A man was arrested.

Dozens in Tel Aviv also protested the US veto and carried signs reading "Apartheid Israel" "Stop the US support of the occupation" and "veto the settlements, choose justice."

Roni Barken, an activist and member of the international movement to boycott Israel said that the veto is "part of a longtime US policy providing Israel and its criminal policy with absolute support". He added, "The protest attracts the world's attention and aimes to pressure the US into aligning itself with international law and consensus."

[give her dixie]

get ready europe for 100s of thousands of 'genuine' political refugees. i was surprised reading another post by the size of the populations in these north african countries 50millions etc thats nearly as many as the uk

Populations in the north African countries:

Morocco      31 million
Algeria        35 million
Tunisia        10 million
Libya           7  million
Egypt         82 million
Palestine      4 million

Total is roughly 169 million people. so yeah Lawnseed, no doubt Europe will see a wave of political refugee's
try and reach it's shores.

The tiny island of Lampedusa, of the coast of Italy, has already seen hundreds of Tunisian's landing in small
boats over the past 3 weeks or so. This is only the start of an exodus from the north African countries.

[lawnseed]

do you ever listen to the amercan forces network. A.F.N. you should hear the shite the ordinary us soldier has to listen to. talk about brain washing, but you get a great insight into how the american brain works. unbelievable stuff!

ps great country music though..

[ludermor]

do you ever listen to the amercan forces network. A.F.N. you should hear the shite the ordinary us soldier has to listen to. talk about brain washing, but you get a great insite into how the american brain works. unbelievable stuff!

ps great country music though..

Tell me about it

[DrinkingHarp]

get ready europe for 100s of thousands of 'genuine' political refugees. i was surprised reading another post by the size of the populations in these north african countries 50millions etc thats nearly as many as the uk

Populations in the north African countries:

Morocco      31 million
Algeria        35 million
Tunisia        10 million
Libya           7  million
Egypt         82 million
Palestine      4 million

Total is roughly 169 million people. so yeah Lawnseed, no doubt Europe will see a wave of political refugee's
try and reach it's shores.

The tiny island of Lampedusa, of the coast of Italy, has already seen hundreds of Tunisian's landing in small
boats over the past 3 weeks or so. This is only the start of an exodus from the north African countries.

Don't forget about the emmigration to the U.S.


Third wave of Arab immigration to the United StatesThe number of immigrants remained relatively small during the second wave of Arab immigrants, primarily due to the restrictive immigration policies of the US. However, in 1965, the United States passed new immigration reforms allowing a new wave of Arabs to immigrate. This new group of Arab immigrants was demographically similar to those that immigrated during the past 20 years; however, this wave differed largely in its scope and in their reasons for immigrating. Between 1967 and 2003 some 757,626 Arabs came to the United States, nearly eleven times the amount of immigrants from the second wave.[20] Moreover, during this time, in addition to increasingly regular conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors, this era was marked by widespread "intra-Arab warfare" and a general increase in religious, ethnic and sectarian tensions in the region.[20] Also, the rise of Islamism in the Middle East during the past few decades helped further drain the region of its native Christian populations.[21] Just as with the previous influx of Arab immigrants, the third major Arab immigration trend consisted of more Palestinians than any other group.[20] The actual number of Palestinians who immigrated to the US during this time is not known because often the United States was not their first destination. That being said, perhaps as many as a quarter of the near 800,000 Arabs were of Palestinian descent. The massive Palestinian exodus was further motivated by the 1967 Six Day War. Further spurring Palestinian immigration were the intifada uprisings of 1987–1993 and 2000–2005.


Arab American religions from 2002 Zogby International Institute SurveyAside from Palestinians, Lebanese made up the next biggest group of immigrants during this time. From 1965 to 2005 around 135,000 Lebanese came to the United States.[22] The overwhelming majority, roughly 120,000, came after the commencement of the Lebanese Civil War in 1975.[22] Furthering the emigration from Lebanon was Israel's 1982 invasion.[20] Egyptians and Iraqis also immigrated to the United States in large numbers during this period. From 1967 to 2003 more than 120,000 Egyptians have immigrated to the US.[23] Of this population, around 50,000 were Coptic Christians.[24] Also, since 1967, 108,000 Iraqis have come to the US.[23] Many fled during the country's drawn-out war with Iran lasting from 1980–1988. Again, in keeping with the "brain-drain" trend of the region, a large portion of these immigrants were educated professionals not willing to serve in the army. Harsh United Nations sanctions following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait further deteriorated Iraq's economy, increasing emigration. Between the first and second US invasions of Iraq roughly 53,000 Iraqis immigrated to the United States.[23] A sizable portion of Iraqi immigrants during this time were Chaldean Christians. For instance, in Detroit alone from 1960–2003 the Chaldean community grew from 3,000 to 80,000, out of a total population of around 150,000 Iraqi Chaldeans in the US as of 2006.[25] Large numbers of Syrians and Yemenis immigrated to the United States during this wave as well. Since 1967, some 36,000 Syrians have immigrated to the US.[26]