Israelis should think carefully about whether they want such a concentrated Palestinian power on their eastern border, General Mansour Abu Rashid, chairman of the Amman Center for Peace and Development, said in Jerusalem on Tuesday.
Abu Rashid’s comments at the Truman Institute came in response to a statement by Dr. Assaf David, who declared that there is an increasing Israeli movement to the political right which sees Jordan as an alternative homeland to the Palestinians. Dr. David has engaged in dialogue on several levels with the Jordanians.
Abu Rashid, the former head of Jordanian intelligence, was a participant in a symposium co-hosted by the Truman Center for the Advancement of Peace and the Israeli Council on Foreign Relations to honor the memory of Dave Kimche, who had been a central figure in the Mossad, director-general of the Foreign Ministry, a member of the board of trustees at the Truman Center, the founding president of the Israel Council on Foreign Relations, and a dedicated peace activist.
Abu Rashid, who enjoyed a 20-year friendship with Kimche, with whom he collaborated on various peace projects, said that 81,000 people have already crossed from Syria to Jordan, where they were being treated as visitors, not as refugees. Jordan already has to cope with 400,000 Palestinians who came from Kuwait, 700,000 Iraqis, Sudanese, and people who came from other parts of the region. It simply can not take in Palestinians from Syria.
“Jordan is fearful of expecting Palestinian refugees from Syria. They have neither the resources nor the infrastructure to accommodate them,” said Abu Rashid.
Author Archives: jimmy
‘United States of Islam’: The logic behind the emerging Arabic Caliphate
The Arabic Caliphate is not a figment of the imagination anymore: fragments of the Middle Eastern regimes will soon form a group of islands called The Muslim Archipelago.
“A specter is haunting Europe — the specter of Communism.”
These were the first words of Karl Marx’s “The Communist Manifesto”. More than a century later a different specter has appeared on the threshold of the Old World: the Specter of the Caliphate.
A year ago Muhammad Badie — the General Guide of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood — stated: “improvement and change that the Muslim nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death, just as the enemies pursue life”.
According to Badie, the ultimate purpose of Arabs is to restore the true face of the Muslim world, which is the State of the Caliphate with Sharia Laws — the sacred and the highest form of human civilization.
Muslim theologians’ standpoint has its own logic. Why would the Arabs adopt social systems alien to them and imposed on them less than a century ago — whether it is democracy, market economy or socialism?
Moreover, they are familiar with the consequences of political experimentation in the recent past.
Liberal democracy? What is the practical meaning of it? The absence of Divine basis, shape, content? Desecration of God and His order? Refusal of values as the supreme value? Rejecting roots as a sacred principle?
Desperate loneliness: “We are left alone, without excuse”? (Jean-Paul Sartre).
The triumph of “the substantial emptiness”? (Ulrich Beck).
Sexual laxity and perversions as an example to follow?
In order to understand someone you need to see the world through their eyes. The liberal freedoms are a blessing for the West and a mockery of the will of the Creator for Muslims. The Islamists’ victory in last elections in Egypt wasn’t the result of brainwashing, but of a deep inner conviction.
The Arab world is ready for the State of Caliphate. It will resemble the theocracy in Saudi Arabia and Iran: the rough laws of “dhimmi” for the non-Muslims (who will survive the slaughter), the submission of women, stoning for adultery, prohibition of usury and homosexuality.
A veteran member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Sheikh Ahmad Gad called “honorable Al-Azhar to rally the Islamic streams in order to unite the Muslim word and effort, restore the Caliphate… O Allah, guide us, open our hearts to faith, and restore this nation to its previous self — one united nation worshiping You and You alone”.
Dr. Kamal Al-Helbawy, former Muslim Brotherhood spokesman in the West named this future Caliphate — “the United States of Islam”. He implied that Arabs want to erase borders that were drawn up by imperialist nations and build global Islamic State.
This is how another Egyptian Islamic Scholar Ibrahim Al-Khouli has formulated the concept of the Muslim Brotherhood: “Forget about Bin Laden and Al Qaida. That’s not what I’m talking about. I am talking about Jihad which is led by the Islamic scholars … I am talking about the Jihad of the entire nation. We must conduct jihad against the West, who are aggressors against the Land of Islam”.
One can talk about the democratization of the Arab world, the “Arab Spring”, and liberalization of the Arab society. However, this observation is only external — from another Time and another World — from the West of the XXI century. An internal perspective is completely different. It’s derived from depths of centuries, and it is reflected in the lexis of Badie and Gad, Al-Helbawy and Al-Khouli, Sheikh Yousef Qaradawi (“Constantinople was conquered in 1453 by a 23-year-old Ottoman named Muhammad ibn Murad, whom we call Muhammad the Conqueror. Now what remains is to conquer Rome”) and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Muhammad Ahmad Hussein who said: “The Hour [of Resurrection] will not come until you fight the Jews. … Our war with the descendants of the apes and pigs (i.e.,Jews) is a war of religion and faith”.
Lastly, Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani declared that no efforts will be spared to spread Wahhabi Islam across the world, encouraging Jihad while investing €50 million in restoring Sharia in the French suburbs where hundreds of thousands of Muslim immigrants reside.
Al-Thani is considered a moderate pro-western ruler. A year ago this type of discourse would have been considered unthinkable. Nowadays these words are not only uttered, but are also validated by donations and financial support. Why one may ask? It is because al-Thani wants to be on the “right side of history”. The time has come. All the obstacles, such as corrupt authoritarian regimes, towards the cherished dream have been scattered like sand dunes with the draft of khamsin.
Just like the Jews are longing to return to Jerusalem ; the Christians are awaiting for the Second Coming of Christ and the kingdom of universal justice so the Arabs are yearning to restore Caliphate for centuries. Caliphate — a theocratic state — was the first and only authentic state in the Arab history, the embodiment of the Divine will.
Sharia Laws determine the internal structure of this state, Jihad – its foreign policy. Recently only starry-eyed professors, charmed by the Sufi spiritual practices, have been talking about Jihad as a self-improvement. Jihad, however is not a spiritual improvement, it is the fulfillment of the Divine will, and whatever is not a part of the “The House of Islam” (Dar al-Islam) is actually the “The House of War” (Dar al-Harb).
There hasn’t been any dispute about the supremacy of Sharia Laws and the divine destiny of the Caliphate. Dividing Islam into “moderate” and “radical” is the flight of imagination of Western intellectuals who confuse, primarily, themselves. Islam (like two other Abrahamic religions) is a fundamentalist one, i.e., literally interprets holy scripture.
Only in the XVII-XVIII centuries in Christianity (and later, influenced by the Enlightenment, in Judaism too) more liberal directions, treating the Bible in allegorical terms, have appeared. In general, the orthodoxy does not accept any abstraction. It is based on the concrete prophetic word.
Creator is anthropomorphic in all three religions; He is not an impersonal substance of Deists and the harmonious deity of Neo-Platonists. He establishes the laws and obliges obeying them. Sacred texts about the triumph of Islam “by the means of Jihad” are not an intention, they are a call to action.
Creating a Caliphate will, obviously, take time. Primarily, it’s necessary to neutralize the resistance of the military junta in Egypt, to eliminate the anarchy in Libya , to sweep away the regime in Syria, to crush the Hashemite monarchy and overthrow the rotten Palestinian leadership, suppress ethnic riots and stop the advancement of the Shiites in Iraq and Lebanon. Secondly, it is essential to affirm the principles of Sharia Laws in the minds of people, since these still exist in the collective consciousness as vague ideas. Finally, only then the scattered islands will be united into a single religious and cultural realm with the main goal — the beginning of Jihad.
Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis are not in a hurry. Sheikh Ahmad Gad said “There is no hope for reform without a return to divine rule, which the Creator chose for man…There is no other way but gradual action, preparing the souls and setting an example, so that faith will enter their hearts…”.
Unlike the European people, the Arabs can wait, but they also know how to mobilize their forces. “Be patient if you are an anvil. Be swift if you are a hammer” — says Arabic wisdom. It took Prophet Muhammad two decades to create Islamic Caliphate in the Arabian Peninsula, and it took his followers less than a decade to conquer Persia , Egypt , and to corner the mighty Byzantine Empire.
“There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come” — Victor Hugo wrote.
If you want liberal democracy for Arabs, you will get the State of the Caliphate in your own house.
03/06/12
American and Israeli leaders need mutual trust
The recent meeting between the American president and the Israeli prime minister at the White House could prove decisive in the atomic stand-off with Iran. The litmus is whether the men can reach a mutual level of trust; otherwise both nations could face serious consequences.
This is the 10th meeting between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Past tête-à-têtes were marred by suspicion and mistrust but today’s meeting may be different because the men need one another.
Obama needs Netanyahu to back-off on threats to unilaterally attack Iranian nuclear sites until “tough” sanctions run their course. Besides, the Israeli’s threats to attack are playing havoc with global oil prices which are hurting Obama domestically. He also needs Netanyahu’s help among Jewish-American voters. Obama won 80 percent of Jewish votes in 2008 but the perception that he is anti-Israel jeopardizes that bloc for him this November, which a good word from Netanyahu could help.
Netanyahu needs Obama as well. The Israeli consistently labels an atomic-armed Iran an existential threat and he fears time is running out to stop Iran’s nuclear advance. Therefore, Netanyahu wants to know Obama’s “redline” that would trigger military action against Iran. Netanyahu also wants Obama to sharpen his rhetoric toward Iran with more statements like “I don’t bluff” regarding military action, a response Obama gave The Atlantic magazine last week.
The pair should build trust by working through these issues but also by agreeing on Iran-related facts and timelines. They seem to agree Iran has most of the tools to eventually build a deliverable atomic weapon. But they operate with different clocks.
The Israeli wants Iran stopped before his “freedom of action” is lost which could happen this year. But because the U.S. doesn’t face an “existential” threat like Israel and has a large and capable military, Obama can wait longer than Israel to strike Iran’s deeply buried atomic weapons facilities. The problem for Netanyahu is whether he can trust Obama to attack Iran once Tehran’s atomic facilities are beyond Jerusalem’s weapons reach or defend Israel should Iran make good on its threat to launch a preemptive attack.
They also disagree about the consequences of a military strike. Obama and his Pentagon staff routinely caution that an attack on Tehran’s atomic sites will create a firestorm of unacceptable consequences across the Middle East such as a massive barrage of rockets targeting Israeli and American regional facilities. But the Israelis are more sanguine about that threat and as Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said, the casualties of a war with Iran could be limited to fewer than 500. Apparently that’s a price Israel is prepared to accept.
They appear to disagree about the rationality of Iran’s leaders as well. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told CNN on Feb. 19 that Iran is “a rational actor.” But ones definition of rational depends on his worldview.
A Persian theocrat like Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei may rationally believe he has a spiritual responsibility to create massive destruction to usher in the return of his messiah (savior) in order to establish a caliphate (Islamic kingdom on earth). That is a radically different perspective than a Western politician like Obama who addresses geopolitical challenges from a secular cost-benefit basis. Both could be rational decision makers who come to opposite conclusions given the same information because they rely on radically different worldviews.
Remember, few Westerners understand a worldview perspective that rationalizes suicide bombing, rioting when holy books are accidentally burned or when spiritual leaders are slurred. We must be careful about our assumptions.
The challenge for Obama and Netanyahu is to set-aside their differences and find agreement on the aforementioned to build trust. This is critical in order to dispel the “public perceptions of a split between the U.S. and Israel” which encourages Iran, said U.S. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.).
While tough economic sanctions continue to eat away at Iran’s economy and that population’s confidence in its leaders, Obama and Netanyahu should consider five concrete actions to build trust and heal the growing split between the U.S. and Israel.
First, Obama needs to be very frank about his intent to use military force if Iran fails to cooperate. Specifically, Obama ought to demand Iran cooperate by providing unfettered access to all nuclear sites and employees. Tehran continues to deny the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, access to military atomic weapons sites like the one at Parchin and nuclear scientists. Obama’s stepped up public pressure will grow bilateral trust even if Iran continues to refuse.
Second, there must be more intelligence sharing and the nations must stop making public statements about the other’s possible covert activities. An Iranian nuclear scientist was assassinated in January and almost immediately U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “categorically” denied U.S. involvement which inferred Israel was the culprit. Her denial was unnecessary and undermined trust.
Third, the U.S. and Israel should conduct trust building bilateral military exercises to hone interoperability and warn Iran. Unfortunately, this January, the U.S. postponed a scheduled May anti-missile exercise in Israel which would have sent a strong deterrence message to Iran. That exercise should be immediately rescheduled and the nations ought to stage joint air operations that include refueling and attack missions using fighters and B2 Stealth Bombers delivering bunker-buster bombs on hardened targets.
Fourth, the U.S. should preposition and increase the presence of strike aircraft in the Persian Gulf region such as at nearby Diego Garcia and increase the number of carriers and submarines operating in the Gulf. These are clear signs the U.S. is serious and will build trust with Israel and our Arab allies who are fearful of the hegemonic Persians.
Finally, the leaders should agree to step-up covert operations against Iranian atomic facilities and nuclear weapons personnel to increase mutual will and trust. Evidently past covert operations successfully took a toll which captured Tehran’s attention but far more can be done to shatter Iranian security and confidence.
Cooperating on these actions and coming to a common understanding of the facts is trust building, something former American and Israeli leaders demonstrated 40 decades ago.
Israel held its fire in October 1973 as Egyptian and Syrian forces massed their armies to attack. At the time President Richard Nixon asked Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir to stand her ground and not launch a preemptive attack as was her plan. Meir trusted Nixon’s assurance of help if she abandoned attack plans which in the end proved to be the right decision.
The 1973 Yom Kippur War might have ended differently had Israel preemptively attacked at least in terms of global support for Israel and the eventual peace treaties that provided 40 years of mostly peaceful coexistence.
Although the situation with Iran’s atomic threat is different in many ways than the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the need for building mutual trust isn’t. It serves neither nation’s best interest today to go their separate ways regarding Iran. Leaving Israel to fend for itself could lead to the unthinkable – reverting to nuclear weapons to snuff-out Iran’s existential threat if at first conventional weapons prove insufficient. Then the U.S. would be drawn in to pick up the pieces after the fact. That outcome serves neither party’s long-term interests.
Addressing the Iran nuclear crisis demands close cooperation between Obama and Netanyahu built on trust that begins with the steps outlined above. Failure to build that trust could have serious military and political consequences for both nations.
03/05/12
Abed Rabbo: Israel is building a settler state
Israel is working toward establishing a state for Jewish settlers in the West Bank and Jerusalem instead of a Palestinian state, PLO Secretary-General Yasser Abed Rabbo claimed Saturday.
He said that there would be no negotiations with Israel in the near future due to the wide gap between the two sides.
Abed Rabbo also denied that the Palestinian Authority was planning to relay a message to Israel via Jordan detailing the Palestinians’ conditions for resuming direct peace talks.
The Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya TV channel reported over the weekend that Jordan’s foreign minister, Nasser Judeh, was slated to deliver the Palestinian message to Israel after bringing it to the attention of the Americans.
“There is no such message and we haven’t handed one to anyone,” Abed Rabbo told the PA’s Voice of Palestine radio station.
“These reports are nothing but speculations and assessments.”
Abed Rabbo said that Israel was continuing to build in settlements “so that it could establish a state for settlers, and not for Palestinians, in the West Bank and Jerusalem.”
Israel wants to prepare a new map for the Palestinian territories in order to impose it on the Palestinians and the world, he added.
“This, at a time when the Palestinians are seeking a negotiated solution on the basis of international legitimacy,” Abed Rabbo said, ruling out the possibility that the peace talks would resume in the near future.
Israel, he charged, does not want to launch a serious peace process. Rather, it wants contacts with the Palestinians, he said.
Abed Rabbo said that Israel also does not want to see an end to the split between the West Bank and Gaza Strip. He claimed that Israel was pushing toward placing the Gaza Strip under Egyptian control.
The PLO official blamed differences within Hamas for the failure of the recent Qatari-brokered reconciliation agreement between PA President Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal.
Ahmed Assaf, a Fatah spokesman in the West Bank, said Saturday that the Hamas leadership in the Gaza Strip have rejected the Qatari-engineered deal “because they want to preserve their privileges and illegitimate jobs.”
Iran touts high turnout, Ahmadinejad faction losing
Iran, under intense Western pressure over its disputed nuclear program, declared an initial turnout of 65 percent in a parliamentary election shunned by most reformists as a sham.
Iran’s Islamic clerical leadership is eager to restore the damage to its legitimacy caused by the violent crushing of eight months of street protests after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s re-election in a 2009 vote his opponents said was rigged.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who endorsed the 2009 result, has since turned sharply against Ahmadinejad. Some early results from Friday’s vote suggested the divisive president’s supporters were losing ground in the 290-seat parliament.
His sister, Parvin Ahmadinejad, failed to win a seat in their hometown of Garmsar, the semi-official Mehr news agency said. Elsewhere, Khamenei loyalists appeared to be doing well.
Final results were not expected on Saturday as millions of ballots cast must be counted by hand.
Khamenei, 72, had called for a high turnout to send a message of defiance to “the arrogant powers bullying us”.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Iran’s election was not free or fair. “The regime has presented the vote as a test of loyalty, rather than an opportunity for people freely to choose their own representatives,” he said.
No independent observers were on hand to monitor the voting or check the official turnout figures. An unelected Guardian Council, which vets all candidates, barred 35 sitting MPs from seeking re-election and nearly 2,000 other would-be candidates.
The vote took place without the two main opposition leaders. Mirhossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi, who ran for president in 2009, have been under house arrest for more than a year.
Iran has been hard hit by Western sanctions over its refusal to halt sensitive nuclear activity.
Obama has said military action was among the options to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. “As president of the United States, I don’t bluff,” he told Atlantic magazine. But he also argued against a pre-emptive Israeli strike.
The dispute over Iran’s uranium enrichment program, which Tehran says is purely peaceful, barely featured in an election dominated by bread-and-butter debates over soaring prices and scarce jobs.
The vote will have scant impact on Iran’s foreign or nuclear policies, in which Khamenei already has the final say, but could strengthen the Supreme Leader’s hand before a presidential vote next year. Ahmadinejad, 56, cannot run for a third term.
The outgoing parliament has summoned him to answer questions next week about his handling of the economy in unprecedented hearings that could hamstring him for the rest of his term.
But the combative Ahmadinejad may try to turn the tables on his critics, some of whom say he has inflicted higher inflation on Iranians by slashing food and fuel subsidies and replacing them with cash handouts of about $38 a month per person.
Global oil prices have spiked to 10-month highs on tensions between the West and Iran, OPEC’s second biggest crude producer.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said on Friday global powers would be falling into a trap if they pursued talks with Iran, saying Tehran would use dialogue to deceive the world and carry on with its nuclear program.
Netanyahu will press Obama, who is facing a presidential election, to stress publicly the nuclear “red lines” that Iran must not cross, Israeli officials say.
Daylight: New film blasts Obama’s Israel record
One day before the AIPAC conference kicks off in Washington, an anti-Obama pro-Israel group is widening its criticism of President Barack Obama’s record on Israel — while the White House defends its treatment of the relationship.
The trailer for a new 30-minute video, entitled “Daylight: The Story of Obama and Israel,” cuts together clips of Obama quotes and outside commentary to put forth the narrative that Obama has made statements and taken actions as president that have put him out of step with the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his supporters.
“We believe that that the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines,” Obama is shown saying, a reference to his May, 2011 speech, where he for the first time explicitly defined U.S. policy as supporting the 1967 borders with agreed swaps as the basis for Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.
“He didn’t quite have a full grasp of what the full region looks like,” conservative journalist Lee Smith is shown saying in the video. “This is not how you treat an ally.”
The ad goes beyond the Israeli issue to suggest that the president is too solicitous of Muslim concerns. The end of the trailer shows Obama saying, “I want to make sure we end before the call to prayer,” a clip from his town hall meeting with Turkish students in Istanbul in April 2009.
The video was produced by the group the Emergency Committee for Israel, which has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on its pre-AIPAC publicity campaign, including posters and billboards all over Washington that question Obama’s commitment to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
“He says a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. Do you believe him?” the posters read. Then, next to a picture of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini and President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, it says, “Do they?”
ECI is run by executive director Noah Pollak and Michael Goldfarb, a former McCain-Palin staffer now working at the consulting firm Orion Strategies and as chairman of the board of the Washington Free Beacon, an new conservative website.
“Obama says a nuclear Iran is unacceptable,” Pollak told The Cable today. “We hope he means what he says, but the recent statements from his administration, his contentious relationship with the Israeli government, and his consistent efforts to weaken congressional sanctions don’t inspire confidence.”
The ECI board is comprised of Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, Gary Bauer, who has endorsed Rick Santorum, and Rachel Abrams, the wife of former NSC official Elliott Abrams, and the author of the controversial Israel-focused blog “Bad Rachel.” The group is also the only Israel-focused advocacy organization to have formed a SuperPAC in the run up to the 2012 election.
As part of its pre-AIPAC activity, ECI took out a full page ad in the New York Times yesterday calling out donors for supporting two liberal advocacy organizations in Washington, the Center for American Progress and Media Matters, and accusing those donors of “funding bigotry and anti-Israel extremism.”
Pollak also said that the video, billboards, and ads happen to refute a pre-AIPAC interview Obama gave to The Atlantic, in which Obama expressed frustration with the attacks coming from conservative lawmakers and groups like ECI that claim he is not pro-Israel.
“Every single commitment I have made to the state of Israel and its security, I have kept,” Obama said. “Why is it that despite me never failing to support Israel on every single problem that they’ve had over the last three years, that there are still questions about that?”
“Obama said today he doesn’t understand why there are questions about his record of support for Israel,” Pollak said. “We think this movie will set the record straight, and remind pro-Israel Americans of the facts of this administration’s failure to stand with Israel at some critical moments.”