Thursday, April 30, 2015

Israel’s aid team to Nepal larger than any other country’s



Israel’s official aid delegation, not counting private groups, numbers 260. The UK is next, with 68

Field hospital begins work; nearly 2,000 Israelis evacuated since Saturday; just one Israeli remains unaccounted for

 April 29, 2015, 3:08 pm 77

Saturday, April 18, 2015

Israel and Apartheid

by LiAmi Lawrence

11 hours ago

Everyday I open the internet to read that Israel is an apartheid country. Although the BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) is very small in number, it is getting a lot of press and its lies are repeated everywhere.  Left wing radical politicians all over the world  are calling Israel an apartheid country.  And the news media are too busy covering which latest basketball player is "schtupping" one of the Kardashians, can't be bothered to check the facts.
As an Israeli citizen living in Tel Aviv, I am going to keep it real and tell you the truth. What crack pipe are these people smoking from? Is their hatred of Israel and Jews so extreme that they make up complete lies, fabrications and partial truths just to distort reality. The Free Dictionary defines apartheid as "an official policy of racial segregation involving political, legal and economic discrimination.
First off, Israel is a democracy the only one in the Mid-East, and 1.8 million of her citizens (20% of the Israeli population) are Arab. Israeli Arabs have the right to vote, scream, curse, demonstrate and in the case of Knesset Member Hanan Zoabi, an Arab woman call for Israel's destruction and still serve in the Knesset.  Meanwhile, women in Saudi Arabia which bans women drivers, can't even drive a car.  63% of Israeli Arabs voted in the election last month. The Arab Joint List is now the third largest party in the Knesset. That is a higher turnout than in the average American election. An Israeli Arab Supreme Court Justice Salim Joubran was the Chairman of the Israeli Election Committee. Over 15% of the total votes casts for the winning right wing Likud Party were cast by Israeli Arabs. Huh?  But this is apartheid.
Living in Tel Aviv, I interact with Israeli Arabs everyday whether its on the phone with customer service or in supermarkets, stores, restaurants, at the bank or in the pharmacy.  One of my doctors that treated me at Ichilov Hospital during my recent surgery was an Israeli Arab as were some of the nurses. The patient in the next room was an Israeli Arab. I never saw signs at the hospital that said  "For Jews Only".
The upscale gym where I am a member is about 10% Israeli Arab. We sweat and work out together. I never saw a sign on the bench press that said "For Jews Only". Riding back to Tel Aviv from Haifa on a Saturday night, the train was a mix of soldiers going back to their bases and Israeli Arab Tel Aviv University students all sitting next to one another side by side.  Imagine that in apartheid Israel.  A few weeks ago walking home from Jaffa, I met a young Jordanian citizen who was so in love with Tel Aviv he wants to stay and work here. Let's speak "tachles". Is there discrimination in Israel?  Yes, just like anywhere in the world. Is it wrong? Yes and I am ashamed every time I hear of an incident. Of course the same way I would be ashamed of racism in America.
While I was President of Hillel in my college in New Jersey in the age before the internet, I can tell you that Jews on campus were subject to many anti-Semitic incidents that today would make the news. One student who wore a kippah,  got his nose broken when someone threw a rock at him . He then transferred schools. Once the door to my dorm room was covered in swastikas. Another time the pizza delivery man screamed anti-Semitic comments at my friends while delivering pizza. Hatred happens everyday in America. Should we divest and boycott America?
But Israel is our home, so when it happens here- in our home -it brings shame upon all of us. Yes we still have social problems here. We have a ways to go in order to make the Israeli Arab population feel like they are really Israeli and not just in name only. But there are now more Israeli Arabs studying in universities, more Israeli Arabs volunteering to serve in the Israeli Army then anytime before. Israeli Arabs like Muhammad Zoabi, cousin of Knesset Member Hanan Zoabi, who begins his army service very shortly.   Proud Israeli Arab Muslim political activist Anett Haskia who sent all of her kids to the Israeli Army.  Israel had an Israeli Arab Miss Israel  Rana Raslan.  This week one of the torch lighters in the upcoming official Yom Ha'atzmaut celebration will be Lucy Aharish -the popular and sometimes controversial Israeli Arab newscaster and talk show host. But we are an apartheid country?
There will always be a few radical "Kapos"-self hating Jews like Yonatan Shapira, Gilad Atzmon and Ilan Pappe, who make a very good living speaking against the State of Israel to the delight of anti-Semites everywhere much like seals performing for their food. They are all a few french fries short of a happy meal.
But for all its faults and there are quite a few, the democratic State of Israel is not racist. And the 1.8 million Israeli Arabs are free to live however they choose. Which is a choice that Jews living in most Arab countries didn't have -since they were forced to leave. How many Jews remain in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Algeria, Yemen, Egypt or Tunisia?  A choice that Jews can't have in Saudi Arabia, a country that bans Jews. But oh ya I forgot, that's acceptable because the Saudis are "our eternal friends" so its "cool" that Jews are forbidden. Most of the Middle East is now "Judenfrei" (free of Jews) but in the blind eyes of some, Israel is an apartheid state.  I understand.

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Hillary Calls Israel "Occupiers "

Hillary Clinton is stepping somewhere between meshuga and chutzpah with a lament in her new book about how Palestinians in Israel's West Bank are living 'under occupation.' 
In the memoir, due in stores on Tuesday, Clinton recounts a 1981 trip she took with her husband Bill between his nonconsecutive terms as governor of Arkansas.
'When we left the city and visited Jericho, in the West Bank,' she writes in her book Hard Choices, 'I got my first glimpse of life under occupation for Palestinians, who were denied the dignity and self-determination that Americans take for granted.'
Those are fighting words for any U.S. politician who hopes to court American Jewish voters.
The last elected official to make the same gaffe was Gov. Chris Christie, the constantly embattled New Jersey Republican.
Dumb choices? 'Crossfire' co-host S.E. Cupp read aloud a passage from Hillary Clinton's new book on Monday, which describes the former secretary of state's feelings about Israel's alleged 'occupation' of Palestinian lands
Dumb choices? 'Crossfire' co-host S.E. Cupp read aloud a passage from Hillary Clinton's new book on Monday, which describes the former secretary of state's feelings about Israel's alleged 'occupation' of Palestinian lands
Politically correct: Israel has built Jewish settlements on a little more than 1 per cent of the disputed West Bank territories, but it has become commonplace for politicians to refer to Tel Aviv as a wholesale 'occupier' of Palestinian lands
Politically correct: Israel has built Jewish settlements on a little more than 1 per cent of the disputed West Bank territories, but it has become commonplace for politicians to refer to Tel Aviv as a wholesale 'occupier' of Palestinian lands
Christie recalled during a March 29 speech before the Republican Jewish Coalition that he had taken 'a helicopter ride from the occupied territories across' in 2012 'and just felt personally how extraordinary that was to understand, the military risk that Israel faces every day.'
With the third-rail of Middle Eastern politics sparking, Christie made a hat-in-hand apology the following day to Sheldon Adelson, the über-wealthy conservative casino owner and serial campaign financier who had organizer the meeting.
But Clinton isn't expected to follow suit.
During a broadcast of CNN's 'Crossfire' program on Monday, a senior adviser to the Ready For Hillary political action committee, which is laying the groundwork for a 2016 presidential campaign, insisted that Clinton won't be falling on her sword


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2653641/Hillary-draws-flak-writing-Palestinians-Jewish-occupation-reviewers-continue-shred-book.html#ixzz3XNbLitEA
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Israel is pleased at compromise deal

(Reuters) - Israel is pleased at a compromise deal on Iran achieved between the United States Congress and the administration of President Barack Obama, Israeli Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz said on Wednesday.In what was seen as a setback for Obama, the U.S. president agreed on Tuesday that Congress should have the power to review a nuclear deal with Iran, reluctantly giving in to pressure from Republicans and some in his own party over the barbed issue.
"We are certainly happy this morning. This is an achievement for Israeli policy," Steinitz told Israel Radio, citing a March 3 speech by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Congress in which he argued against a then-emerging framework agreement with Tehran on curbing its nuclear program.Steinitz said the compromise bill would be "a very important element in preventing a bad deal", or at least in improving the April 2 blueprint that world powers charted with Iran.The bill requires the Obama administration to send the text of any final agreement with Iran to Congress as soon as it is completed, and blocks Obama's ability to waive many U.S. sanctions on Tehran while Congress reviews the deal. It allows a final vote on whether to lift sanctions imposed by Congress in exchange for Iran dismantling its nuclear capabilities.It also requires that the White House send Congress regular, detailed reports on a range of issues including Iran's support for terrorism, ballistic missiles and nuclear program.
"This is more pressure and another barrier in the face of a bad agreement, and therefore the administration and the negotiating team will make more of an effort to seal gaps and to achieve an agreement that looks better, or at least more reasonable, so that it will pass in Congress," Steinitz said.
Obama has invested enormous political capital throughout his presidency in securing an international agreement to ensure Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon, relying on tight sanctions that crippled Iran's economy and forced it to negotiate.
Israel, believed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal, has differed sharply with Obama over the emerging accord, fearing it will not be stringent enough and will allow the Islamic Republic to develop its own atomic weapons.
Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful, but it has never welcomed intrusive inspections and has in the past kept some nuclear sites secret.

(Writing by Ori Lewis; Editing by Jeffrey Heller and Crispian Balmer)


Monday, April 13, 2015

Was the South Carolina Shooting a Reflection of Racism, Police Subculture or Both?

By Alan Dershowitz

Screenshot of phone video taken by bystander Feidin Santana, showing Officer Michael Slager shooting Walter Scott.
As more evidence emerges—in addition to the cell phone video of a South Carolina policeman, who is white, shooting a black man in the back—it certainly shows that serious abuse of power and a likely homicide occurred. But does it also show a racially motivated interaction?
The officers words were not recorded so motive must be circumstantially inferred from the actions that were captured on the short but dramatic cell phone video, and from what we know occurred before and after what we have all seen on television.
We know from the police reports that Walter Scott was stopped for a busted tail light on a Mercedes, and we also know that in many parts of our country a black man driving a Mercedes with a minor infraction is more likely to be stopped than a white driver.
We know that there was a scuffle between Officer Michael Slager and Scott, and that the officer tased Scott.  We know from the video that Scott ran away from the officer and that the officer then fired eight shots, several of which hit Scott. We know from the video that the officer picked up an item, which appears to be the taser, and dropped it near Scott’s body.
It is reasonable to infer from these circumstances that Scott’s race may have played a role in his being stopped for a minor traffic violation—in other words that the broken taillight may have provided an excuse for what really was the racial profiling of a black man driving a fancy car.
It is also possible, though less certain, that the decision to arrest and then tase Scott may have been influenced by his race. But it may also have been influenced by his actions—resisting arrest, seeking to flee. It is certainly possible that Officer Slager would have done the same thing to a white man who acted the way Scott did. We can never know for certain.
So now we come to the shooting, which we have all seen and can judge for ourselves. We don’t know whether words were exchanged before the shooting began, but no unrecorded words could possibly justify what we see on the video: a man with nothing in his hands running away from an arrest with his back to the officer being shot multiple times. The officer may have been angry with Scott, for trying to grab his taser—if that is indeed what Scott did. He may even have been frightened, though the video does not suggest fear on the part of the officer, as he methodically shot Scott in the back as he was running away. It suggests that the officer was trying to prevent Scott from fleeing. If Scott had, in fact, assaulted Officer Slager and had tried to grab his taser, then the officer may have had reasonable grounds for arresting Scott for more serious crimes of violence, such as assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest. But that would still not justify shooting Scott in the back to stop him from fleeing such an arrest, since the constitutional criterion for the use of deadly force requires a reasonable fear of imminent serious harm to the officer or the public. The video clearly shows that this standard was not met. But it doesn’t necessarily show that Officer Slager’s unauthorized use of deadly force was motivated by racism. A considerable number of white people have been unlawfully shot by police who were angered by the disrespect and contempt shown them by arrest resisters. This does not, of course, justify any unlawful resort to deadly force, but it does provide a plausible non-racist explanation for Officer Slager’s apparently unlawful response.
Finally, we come to what appears to be the deliberate planting of the taser near Scott’s body to create the false impression that Scott was holding the weapon when he was shot. Tragically, this type of police criminality—it is a felony to tamper with evidence, including moving its location—is far too typical of a small subculture of rogue police officers who commonly plant evidence to cover up their misconduct. Some carry with them “Saturday night specials”—small cheap pistols—that they can plant on victims of improper police shootings. Others carry packets of drugs to plant on those arrested without probable cause.
These bad cops—and they constitute a tiny fraction of all decent police officers—are equal opportunity abusers. They are as likely to plant evidence on or near a white as a black person. They are doing it to protect themselves—to cover up their misconduct. So if Officer Slager did, in fact, plant the taser near Scott’s body, he did it because he realized that he had messed up. He probably would have done the same, had Scott been white. What we don’t know is whether he would have found himself in the situation that necessitated a cover up—whether he would have shot or even stopped Scott in the first place—if Scott had been white.
Within the small subculture of bad cops—those who shoot out of anger, plant evidence and lie to protect each other—there may be some who are also motivated by racial bias. There may be others who have mixed motives. But if the subculture is changed, as it must be, the primary beneficiaries will be black Americans, because black Americans are disproportionately impacted by every aspect of our criminal justice system.

Sunday, April 12, 2015

The problem with the Two State Solution

The problem with the Two State Solution is that Israel is the only state involved. The other side consists of three elements. the many innocent people who recognize the good in Israel, the many people who want Israel to be punished despite the many benefits Israel has handed them, and a third element, a horde of men of bloodshed and deceit who lead the first two groups, empowered by the Oslo Accords to keep their Iron grip over their people. The end result is that there is no Two State Solution that leads to peace.
But there is an alternative.

Recently, Palestinian Authority leader Abbas called for the destruction of Hamas. Begged Arab states to attack Hamas. After all, Hamas crossed a line, they did not do as Fatah demanded. It was not to battle terror that he stated this. They got in his way and they had to die. That's how his mentor Arafat would have handled it, and that is what he demanded in his speech and put into his foreign policy against... his unity government partner? Isn't it Abbas who wanted a unity government with Hamas? He worked hard for a peace deal with Hamas. But now they've gone too far and they must go.

If we apply logic - no offense to any lingering Oslo Accord proponents who are unable to use logic - if we do use that logic stuff, we come to a worrisome conclusion. If Fatah would not hesitate to betray their word to their brethren, whom they chose over Israel, why would they keep a treaty with Israel?

Fatah are leaders willing to make a peace deal. And they are also leaders who desire that their enemies with whom they made a treaty should die the moment Fatah does not continue to get its way.

That makes Fatah not candidates to become men of peace, nor potential peace partners. That makes them men of bloodshed in sheep's clothing.

If they would do this to their brethren in Gaza, obviously no one is sacrosanct from their potential treachery.

Tell your congressmen. WARNING: This is how Fatah treats people they make peace deals with.

The moment Arafat called the path to "peace" a "strategic choice for peace", I knew something was up. But what does Arafat have to do with Abbas? Arafat was an arch terrorist, Abbas, after all, is a man who "we can make a deal with."
What does it take to be wed to a murderer? What does it take to be the most trusted assistant to an arch terrorist? A gang leader's wife may not have as much blood on her hands, but would you trust your kids to her if she offered to babysit?  What of by a man who was mentored by an arch terrorist? Who shows the same disregard of life when he does not get his way?

That is what every proponent of a peace deal with Fatah is suggesting. Trust Abbas and his cronies with your back? Do you really think this is a path to true peace - or is it only the path to perpetual conflict?

And Abbas is just the figurehead. Another variation of the same terrorist in politician's clothing would take his place if this head of the hydra was gone.  Therefore, do not make a deal with the hydra at all.

Why are Arabs still leaving the Palestinian Authority for places like the USA?
The few successes of political leadership in Judea and Samaria ("The West Bank") by Fatah were actually performed by the local leadership, which existed prior to the Oslo Accords. The local mayors and township leaders are the true leaders of the Palestinian Arabs in these territories, but they will never be allowed to truly lead their people to maximum social improvement, unless Israel annexes the area and enables them with true democratic freedom. The only way to bring that level of governance is to stop trapping them behind a fence with a bunch of terrorist bullies who always put their agenda of bloodshed before civil and social services. 
Hamas is Fatah without the act, without the sheep's clothing.  Fatah is Hamas with political spin. Hamas is the stick, Fatah is the carrot. The goal is only Jihad, not the betterment of their people. The conquest of all land West of the River Jordan, without real concern over what happens to the people after their benefactors in Israel are gone.

But the people know. There have been reports of a dual sentiment among individuals who were interviewed. They want the PA to take over, yet they also want to be a part of Israel.  Why is that contradictory phenomenon occurring?

Innocent Palestinians Arabs in the territories want the PA to be successful ,but mainly for sentimental reasons. Like someone voting for a person of their race who runs for political office, even if they do not like their policies.  The media does not report there is palpable fear in Arabs of the territories in their daily existence under Fatah rule and also over what happens the day after a potential Israeli withdrawal. On such a day, when the only government that truly is concerned for their social welfare, Israel, is no longer part of the picture. 

Palestinian Arabs are keeping their heads low and trying to stay out of the way of the Palestinian Authority. They turn to their local leaders and hope they need not rely on the corrupt and vindictive national leadership of Fatah's Palestinian Authority.

Why are Arabs still leaving the Palestinian Authority for places like the USA? While exact figures are unknown since the PA conveniently controls the release of that information, even they have admitted that it exists. It is too large of an emigration to pretend it is not occurring at all. But wait, haven't we been told that their independence is more important to them than life itself?  Why not participate in the "political messianic project" of Palestinian Authority leadership if independence is so important?

Because the Oslo Accords are not about helping Palestinian Arabs, or bringing them peace, or even true independence. They are about making the West feel better with themselves and about how they view the state of the World today. Not what happens a few years or months down the road after the big "Peace in Our Time" festival would be held. For such a fake peace, we do not establish a prelude to perpetual war and a purgatory for a people that no one among their own national leaders really wants to save.

Remove the Palestinian Authority from power. Annex Judea and Samaria and naturalize those who are innocent of terror.

For Israel there exists in this phenomena a double edged sword. Over 40 percent of the people want the Palestinian Authority to be dissolved, and more than that seem OK with violence against Israel. As I warned years ago, the marginalization of the good people among the Palestinian Arabs has eroded the amount of Palestinians who would be eligible to become Israeli citizens should a One State solution occur.

In order to save as many Palestinian Arabs as possible, as well as vindicate Israeli intentions towards them, Israel must trade the two-state path for a one-state path, and soon. Lest a regional war make this matter moot, and the opportunity for the Sanctification of God's name in this matter, God forbid, be lost.

Let us show mercy on those Palestinian Arabs living in fear and discontent under terrorist leadership, by allowing them into the fold of the united State of Israel. That must be done in a way that does not harm the Israeli economy, infrastructure or political balance, such as with a plan like the Everyone Wins Peace Plan. May it soon be so, by the grace of God.

For a Summary of the Everyone Wins Peace Plan click here.

 

What Egypt's President Sisi Really Thinks

 by Daniel Pipes

Former air marshal Husni Mubarak, now 86, had ruled Egypt for 30 years when his military colleagues forced him from office in 2011. Three years and many upheavals later, those same colleagues replaced his successor with retired field marshal Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, 59. The country, in short, made a grand round-trip, going from military ruler to military ruler, simply dropping down a generation.

This return raises basic questions: After all the hubbub, how much has actually changed? Does Sisi differ from Mubarak, for example, in such crucial matters as attitudes toward democracy and Islam, or is he but a younger clone?

Sisi remains something of a mystery. He plays his cards close to the vest; one observer who watched his presidential inaugural speech on television on June 8 described it as "loaded with platitudes and very long." He left few traces as he zoomed through the ranks in three years, going from director of Military Intelligence and Reconnaissance to become the youngest member of the ruling military council, and then rapidly ascending to chief of staff, defense minister, and president.

Fortunately, a document exists that reveals Sisi's views from well before his presidency: An essay dated March 2006, when he attended the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania. His 5,000-word English-language term paper, "Democracy in the Middle East," has minimal intrinsic value but holds enormous interest by providing the candid views of an obscure brigadier general soon and unexpectedly to be elected pharaoh of Egypt.


Brig. Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi (center) in a 2006 group picture of the International Fellows class at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
While one cannot discount careerism in a term paper, Sisi's generally assertive and opinionated tone – as well as his negative comments about the United States and the Mubarak regime – suggest that he expressed himself freely.

In the paper, Sisi makes two main arguments: democracy is good for the Middle East; and for it to succeed there many conditions must first be achieved. Sisi discusses other topics as well, which offer valuable insights into his thinking.

Democracy Is Good for the Middle East

Sisi endorses democracy for practical, rather than philosophical, reasons: it just works better than a dictatorship. "Many in the Middle East feel that current and previous autocratic governments have not produced the expected progress." (I have slightly edited his English for the sake of clarity.) Democracy has other benefits, as well: it reduces unhappiness with government and narrows the vast gap between ruler and ruled, both of which he sees contributing to the region's backwardness. In all, democracy can accomplish much for the region and those who promote it "do have an opportunity now in the Middle East."

In parallel, Sisi accepts the free market because it works better than socialism: "many Middle East countries attempted to sustain government-controlled markets instead of free markets and as a result no incentive developed to drive the economy."

It is reasonable, even predictable that General Sisi would view democracy and free markets in terms of their efficacy. But, without a genuine commitment to these systems, will President Sisi carry through with them, even at the expense of his own power and the profits from the socialized military industries run by his former colleagues? His 2006 paper implies only a superficial devotion to democracy; and some of his actions since assuming power (such as returning to appointed rather than elected university deans and chairmen) do not augur well for democracy.

Conditions for Democracy to Succeed in the Middle East

Sisi lays down three requirements for democracy to succeed in the Middle East :

(1) It must adapt to Islam. He describes "the religious nature" of the Middle East as "one of the most important factors" affecting the region's politics. Islam makes democracy there so different from its Western prototype that it "may bear little resemblance" to the original. Therefore, it "is not necessarily going to evolve upon a Western template" but "will have its own shape or form coupled with stronger religious ties."

Those religious ties mean that Middle Eastern democracy cannot be secular; separating mosque and state is "unlikely to be favorably received by the vast majority of Middle Easterners," who are devout Muslims. Rather, democracy must be established "upon Islamic beliefs" and "sustain the religious base." The executive, legislative, and judicial branches all must "take Islamic beliefs into consideration when carrying out their duties." Presumably, this translates into the Islamic authorities under President Sisi reviewing proposed laws to safeguard Islamic values, regardless of what the majority of voters wants.

(2) The West should help, but not interfere. The West looms large for Sisi, who fears its negative influence even as he seeks its support.

He has many worries: The great powers want a democracy resembling Western institutions rather than accepting a democracy "founded on Islamic beliefs." He interprets the then-named global war on terror as "really just a mask for establishing Western democracy in the Middle East." To meet their energy needs, Westerners "attempt to influence and dominate the region." The wars they started in Iraq and Afghanistan need to be resolved before democracy can take root. Support for Israel raises suspicions about their motives.

Sisi's major concern is U.S. rejection of democracies that "may not be sympathetic to Western interests." He demands that the West not interfere when its adversaries win elections: "The world cannot demand democracy in the Middle East, yet denounce what it looks like because a less than pro-Western party legitimately assumes office." Translation: Do not call President Sisi anti-democratic when he pursues policies Washington dislikes.

But the peoples of the Middle East also need the West. In the economic arena, they are unlikely to succeed "without external support from Western democracies." Accordingly, he pleads for the U.S. government to assist "supportive economic nations in the Middle East, such as Egypt." President Sisi wants American taxpayers to continue footing his bills.

The West is also the answer, in Sisi's view, to the sycophantic and unaccountable Middle East media. "If corruption exists in the government, it is likely to go unreported." Therefore, he wants those in power "to let go of controlling the media." To build a superior press, Sisi looks to the West, specifically to international news organizations and to governments. Inasmuch as President Sisi quickly intimidated the Egyptian media into obsequiousness as soon as he assumed office, it is good to know that, in principle, he appreciates a free press. Westerners who meet with him should unceasingly remind him of this.

(3) Giving the people more responsibility. Democracy does not emerge on its own, Sisi asserts, but "needs a good environment – like a reasonable economic situation, educated people, and a moderate understanding of religious issues." The problem in Egypt is that, "the nature of the population has been one of dependence upon and favor from the government." How to break this dependence? "Education and the media are the key enablers toward the establishment of democracy; there must be a shift from state controlled means to population controlled means." General Sisi understood that Egypt needs a politically mature citizenry; but will President Sisi permit it to emerge?

Examining his three preconditions, the first two give Sisi, as ruler, the freedom to act anti-democratically. Only the third component would, in fact, help bring about democracy.

The Middle East as a Unified Region

One unexpected theme that emerges from his paper concerns Sisi's (possibly neo-Nasserist) hope that the Middle East become a single unit: "the Middle East should organize as a region." He wants the Middle East (an area he does not define; one wonders whether Israel would be included) to view itself "much in the same manner as the European Union," implying a customs union, a single currency, freedom of cross-border movement, and a joint foreign policy. He offers this as a goal of free elections: "Democracy in the Middle East … must find a unifying theme that draws the Middle East into a unified region."

Clearly, Sisi faces too many pressing domestic issues to try to unify the deeply divided and increasingly anarchic Middle East; should he long remain in power, however, this could become one of his goals and perhaps even take the form of an anti-Muslim Brotherhood alliance under his leadership.

Islamism

Which brings one to the deepest mystery about Sisi: is he an Islamist, someone seeking to apply the Islamic law in all its severity and in its entirety?

Personally pious, he is said to have memorized the Koran. According to the Financial Times, "Not only does his wife don the Islamic headscarf now sported by most Egyptian women, but one of his daughters is also said to wear the niqab" (a body and head cover that reveals only the eyes). He became defense minister because the Muslim Brotherhood considered him an ally. Since then, however, he has made himself the mortal enemy of the Muslim Brotherhood while allying with the yet more extreme Salafis, Islamists trying to live as Muhammad did. While Sisi's 2006 essay does not resolve these contradictions, it does offer clues.

Several of his observations about early Islam make it clear that Sisi aligns himself with the Salafis. With them, he recalls the period of Muhammad and the Four Righteous Caliphs (612-660 A.D.) as not only "very special" and "the ideal form of government," but also "the goal for any new form of government." With these early caliphs as models, he envisions Muslims uniting "so that the earliest form of El Kalafa [the caliphate] is reestablished." In passing, he gratuitously denigrates the Shi'is of early Islam (for attempting to offer power "to family members [of Muhammad] rather than to the most qualified leaders").

Other comments of Sisi's, however, criticize Islamists. When an actual caliphate recently declared itself in Syria and Iraq, he responded a week later with unrestrained hostility. Shortly before he submitted his paper in 2006, Hamas, a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot, won a victory in the Palestinian legislative elections, prompting Sisi's mild but critical observation that elected Islamists are likely to face "internal governance challenges down the road." He added that "there is hope that the more moderate religious segments can mitigate extremist measures," although Sisi's current hard line against the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt suggests that he (along with millions of other Egyptians) has given up any such hope. Sisi even states that Islam as such creates political problems for rulers: "The religious nature of the Middle East creates challenges for the governing authorities."

Anti-Mubarak

Although Sisi represented the Egyptian armed forces at the Army War College, his paper included some brave and accurate statements critical of his country's leadership, even mentioning Mubarak by name:

Faux democracy: "Many autocratic leaders claim to be in favor of democratic ideals and forms of government, but they are leery of relinquishing control to the voting public of their regimes." Also: Middle Eastern governments that claim to be democratic actually "have very tight centralized control and unfairly influence election outcomes through control of the media and outright intimidation."
Poor economic policies: "Excessive government controls and bloated public payrolls stifle individual initiative and tend to solidify the powerbase of ruling political parties. In Egypt under President Sadat, government controls were lifted in an effort to stimulate economic growth; however, these efforts have not blossomed under President Mubarak."
Lackey intelligence services: "The security forces of a nation need to develop a culture that demonstrates commitment to a nation rather than a ruling party."
U.S. support for undeserving regimes: In pursuit of its interests, "America has supported non-democratic regimes and some regimes that were not well respected in the Middle East. Examples include Gulf State regimes, Saudi Arabia, the early Saddam regime, Morocco, Algeria, etc." (One imagines Sisi listing Egypt in a first draft, then – for caution's sake – removing it.)
In addition to showing the courage to criticize his tyrant-boss, if only in an academic term paper, these perceptive comments indicate President Sisi's own deepest aspirations for Egypt – as well as what was not on his mind, such as reducing the Islamist threat or the role of the military in Egypt's economy

Conclusion

The pre-political brigadier-general of 2006 anticipated the somewhat contradictory chief of staff, defense minister, and president. Sisi is a pious Muslim ambivalent about Islamists, a fan of the caliphate in theory who rejects it in practice, a critic of Mubarak's who permitted the revival of his political party, a fan of democracy who "wins" 97 percent of the vote, a military officer theorizing on forms of democracy, a fan of independent media who allows journalists to be convicted of terrorism charges, a critic of tyranny who encourages adulation of himself.

Sisi, clearly, remains a work in progress, a 59-year-old still trying to discover who he is and what he thinks even as he rules a country of 86 million. On-the-job training is literal in his case. Amid the political brush fires and exigencies of present-day Egypt, the gist of his eight-year old ideas are likely to emerge as dominant: a heavily conditional form of democracy, at once safe for Islam and from Islam, experiments to loosen controls over the intelligence services, the economy, education and the media, varying tactics toward Islamists, as well as a revived attempt to make the region of the Middle East a world power.


This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

Thursday, April 9, 2015

Its Official: There Will Be No Deal With Terrorist Iran


Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei warns that Western negotiators are 'into lying and breaching promises'
Rouhani demands lifting of sanctions before final nuclear deal signed
#IranNuclear
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei warns that Western negotiators are 'into lying and breaching promises'

Iran's Rouhani beneath a poster of Ayatollah Khamenei on National Day of Nuclear Technology (AFP)

Iran will only sign a final nuclear deal if all sanctions are lifted on the same day, President Hassan Rouhani said on Thursday.

“We want a win-win deal for all parties involved in the nuclear talks," Rouhani said during a televised speech.

Iran and six world powers including the US reached a landmark agreement last week that would see Tehran's nuclear capabilities severely restricted in return for a lifting of the economic sanctions that have stifled Iran’s growth for decades.

Under the announced deal, Iran would be limited to just one active nuclear plant, and would agree not to enrich uranium, the crucial component in producing weapons, beyond a low level for at least 15 years.

Despite positivity from Iran and the Western powers when the deal was announced, with US President Barack Obama saying the deal would “make our world safer,” it appears that the parties involved have different interpretations about the implementation of the agreement.

Iran marked its National Day of Nuclear Technology on Thursday with televised speeches from President Rouhani and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who stressed that nuclear production is a “necessity” for the country.

Iran has always maintained that it needs nuclear facilities for energy production, while Western powers have sought to scale back its capabilities amid fears that it could be producing a nuclear weapon.

"Our main gain in the talks was the fact that US President Barack Obama acknowledged that Iranians will not surrender to bullying, sanctions and threats," Rouhani said.

"It is a triumph for Iran that the first military power in the world has admitted Iranians will not bow to pressure."

Since 2012, sanctions imposed by the US and EU cut off Iranian oil exports to the tune of nearly 1.5 mn barrels per day, equivalent to a 60 percent drop in its oil exports.

Khamenei warned on Thursday that the framework agreement reached in the Swiss lakeside town of Lausanne last week was no guarantee that a final deal will be reached by 30 June, the deadline set during the recent negotiations.

"What has been done so far does not guarantee an agreement, nor its contents, nor even that the negotiations will continue to the end," Khamenei said on his official website.

In a speech delivered later on Thursday, the country’s top religious cleric said that, while he supported the Iranian negotiators, he feared that the other parties involved were “into lying and breaching promises”.

“No deal is preferable to a deal that goes against Iran’s interests and dignity”.
- See more at: http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/rouhani-demands-lifting-sanctions-signing-final-deal-18942310#sthash.0GZFyvV8.Nl4HtlZC.dpuf

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s mother, Zubeidat,calls Americans "terrrorists” Wednesday on social media


“I will never forget it. May god bless those who helped my son. The terrorists are the Americans and everyone knows it. My son is the best of the best,” she posted in Russian on VKontakte, a social media site, Vocativ reported. Her post was on “Support for Dzhokhar,” a group created on VKontakte by a family friend.

Of the 30 counts he faced, 17 carried the death penalty.

Tsarnaev and his older brother, Tamerlan, planted two pressure-cooker bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon bombing on April 15, 2013, killing three people and injuring more than 260.


Right after the 2013 bombing, she told CNN that the event was a fake and the blood on Boylston Street wasn’t blood but paint. From her home in Dagestan, she claimed at the time that her sons were being framed for their Muslim beliefs.

As the two Chechen brothers fled, they fatally shot Sean Collier, 27, a police officer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who was sitting in his cruiser, and then they carjacked a separate vehicle. The car’s driver escaped at a gas station.

Tamerlan, 26, died in a shootout with police on a narrow residential street.

The younger Tsarnaev, who was 19 at the time, was captured in Watertown hiding in a boat in a resident’s backyard after an intense door-to-door search.

In the courtroom, Tsarnaev, now 21, kept his hands folded on this lap and showed no emotion as the verdict was read.



Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/9/dzhokhar-tsarnaevs-mother-zubeidat-calls-americans/#ixzz3WohYk57Q

web stats software
web stats software