Today, the Egyptian regime faces its gravest threat since Anwar Sadat’s assassination 30 years ago. As protesters take to the street for the third day in a row demanding the overthrow of 82-year-old President Hosni Mubarak, it is worth considering the possible alternatives to his regime.
On Thursday afternoon, presidential hopeful Mohamed El Baradei, the former head of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency, returned to Egypt from Vienna to participate in anti-regime demonstrations.
As IAEA head, Elbaradei shielded Iran’s nuclear weapons program from the Security Council.
He repeatedly ignored evidence indicating that Iran’s nuclear program was a military program rather than a civilian energy program. When the evidence became too glaring to ignore, Elbaradei continued to lobby against significant UN Security Council sanctions or other actions against Iran and obscenely equated Israel’s purported nuclear program to Iran’s.
His actions won him the support of the Iranian regime which he continues to defend. Just last week he dismissed the threat of a nuclear armed Iran, telling the Austrian News Agency, “There’s a lot of hype in this debate,” and asserting that the discredited 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate that claimed Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003 remains accurate.
Elbaradei’s support for the Iranian ayatollahs is matched by his support for the Muslim Brotherhood.
This group, which forms the largest and best-organized opposition movement to the Mubarak regime, is the progenitor of Hamas and al-Qaida. It seeks Egypt’s transformation into an Islamic regime that will stand at the forefront of the global jihad. In recent years, the Muslim Brotherhood has been increasingly drawn into the Iranian nexus along with Hamas. Muslim Brotherhood attorneys represented Hizbullah terrorists arrested in Egypt in 2009 for plotting to conduct spectacular attacks aimed at destroying the regime.
Elbaradei has been a strong champion of the Muslim Brotherhood. Just this week he gave an interview to Der Spiegel defending the jihadist movement. As he put it, “We should stop demonizing the Muslim Brotherhood. …[T]hey have not committed any acts of violence in five decades. They too want change. If we want democracy and freedom, we have to include them instead of marginalizing them.”
The Muslim Brotherhood for its part has backed Elbaradei’s political aspirations. On Thursday, it announced it would demonstrate at ElBaradei’s side the next day.
Then there is the Kifaya movement. The group sprang onto the international radar screen in 2004 when it demanded open presidential elections and called on Mubarak not to run for a fifth term. As a group of intellectuals claiming to support liberal, democratic norms, Kifaya has been upheld as a model of what the future of Egypt could look like if liberal forces are given the freedom to lead.
But Kifaya’s roots and basic ideology are not liberal. They are anti-Semitic and anti-American.
Kifaya was formed as a protest movement against Israel with the start of the Palestinian terror war in 2000. It gained force in March 2003 when it organized massive protests against the US-led invasion of Iraq. In 2006, its campaign to get a million Egyptians to sign a petition demanding the abrogation of the peace treaty with Israel received international attention.
Many knowledgeable Egypt-watchers argued this week that the protesters have no chance of bringing down the Mubarak regime. Unlike this month’s overthrow of Tunisia’s despot Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, they say there is little chance that the Egyptian military will abandon Mubarak.
But the same observers are quick to note that whoever Mubarak selects to succeed him will not be the beneficiary of such strong support from Egypt’s security state. And as the plight of Egypt’s overwhelmingly impoverished citizenry becomes ever more acute, the regime will become increasingly unstable. Indeed, its overthrow is as close to a certainty as you can get in international affairs.
And as we now see, all of its possible secular and Islamist successors either reject outright Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel or will owe their political power to the support of those who reject the peace with the Jewish state. So whether the Egyptian regime falls next week or next year or five years from now, the peace treaty is doomed.
SINCE THE start of Israel’s peace process with Egypt in 1977, supporters of peace with the Arabs have always fallen into two groups: the idealists and the pragmatists.
Led by Shimon Peres, the idealists have argued that the reason the Arabs refuse to accept Israel is that Israel took “their” land in the 1967 Six Day War. Never mind that the war was a consequence of Arab aggression or that it was simply a continuation of the Arab bid to destroy the Jewish state which officially began with Israel’s formal establishment in 1948. As the idealists see things, if Israel just gives up all the land it won in that war, the Arabs will be appeased and accept Israel as a friend and natural member of the Middle East’s family of nations.
Peres was so enamored with this view that he authored The New Middle East and promised that once all the land was given away, Israel would join the Arab League.
Given the absurdity of their claims, the idealists were never able to garner mass support for their positions. If it had just been up to them, Israel would never have gotten on the peace train. But lucky for the idealists, they have been able to rely on the unwavering support of the unromantic pragmatists to implement their program.
Unlike the starry-eyed idealists, the so-called pragmatists have no delusions that the Arabs are motivated by anything other than hatred for Israel, or that their hatred is likely to end in the foreseeable future. But still, they argue, Israel needs to surrender.
It is the “Arab Street’s” overwhelming animosity towards Israel that causes the pragmatists to argue that Israel’s best play is to cut deals with Arab dictators who rule with an iron fist. Since Israel and the Arab despots share a fear of the Arab masses, the pragmatists claim that Israel should give up all the land it took control over as a payoff to the regimes, who in exchange will sign peace treaties with it.
This was the logic that brought Israel to surrender the strategically priceless Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in exchange for the Camp David accord that will not survive Mubarak.
And of course, giving up Sinai wasn’t the only sacrifice Israel made for that nearly defunct document. Israel also gave up its regional monopoly on US military platforms. Israel agreed that in exchange for signing the deal, the US would begin providing massive military aid to Egypt. Indeed, it agreed to link US aid to Israel with US aid to Egypt.
Owing to that US aid, the Egyptian military today makes the military Israel barely defeated in 1973 look like a gang of cavemen. Egypt has nearly 300 F-16s. Its main battle tank is the M1A1 which it produces in Egypt. Its navy is the largest in the region. Its army is twice the size of the IDF. Its air defense force constitutes a massive threat to the IAF. And of course, the ballistic missiles and chemical weapons it has purchased from the likes of North Korea and China give it a significant stand-off massdestruction capability.
Despite its strength, due to the depth of popular Arab hatred of Israel and Jews, the Egyptian regime was weakened by its peace treaty.
Partially in a bid to placate its opponents and partially in a bid to check Israeli power, Egypt has been the undisputed leader of the political war against Israel raging at international arenas throughout the world. So, too, Mubarak has permitted and even encouraged massive anti- Semitism throughout Egyptian society.
With this balance sheet at the end of the “era of peace” between Israel and Egypt, it is far from clear that Israel was right to sign the deal in the first place. In light of the relative longevity of the regime it probably made sense to have made some deal with Egypt. But it is clear that the price Israel paid was outrageously inflated and unwise.
IN CONTRAST to the Egyptian regime, as the popular outcry following Al-Jazeera’s publication of the Palestinian negotiations documents this week shows, the Fatah-run Palestinian Authority is as weak as can be. Yitzhak Rabin, the godfather of the pragmatist camp, famously argued that Yasser Arafat and Fatah would handle the Israel-hating Palestinian Street, “without the Supreme Court and B’Tselem.”
That is, he argued that it made sense to surrender massive amounts of strategically critical land to a terrorist organization because Arafat and his associates would repress their people with an iron fist, unfettered by the rule of law and Palestinian human rights organizations.
And yet, the fact of the matter is that Arafat commanded the terror war against Israel that began in 2000 and transformed Palestinian society into a jihadist society that popularly elected Hamas to lead it.
The leaked Palestinian documents don’t tell us much we didn’t already know about the nature of negotiations between Israel and Fatah. The Palestinians demanded that the baseline of talks assume that all the disputed territories actually belong to them. And for no particular reason, Tzipi Livni and Ehud Olmert agreed to these historically unjustified terms of reference.
While this was well known, in publishing the documents, Al- Jazeera has still made two important contributions to the public debate.
First, the PA’s panicked reaction to the documents exposes the ridiculousness of the notion that the likes of Mahmoud Abbas, Saeb Erekat and Salam Fayyad are viable partners for peace.
Not only do they lack the power to maintain a peace deal with Israel. They lack to power to sign a peace deal with Israel. All they can do is talk – far away from the cameras – about hypothetical, marginal concessions in a peace that will never, ever be achieved. The notion that Israel should pay any price for a deal with these nobodies is completely ridiculous.
The Al-Jazeera papers also expose Livni’s foolishness.
Just as she failed to recognize the inherent weakness of the Lebanese state when she championed UN Security Council Resolution 1701 which called for the Hizbullah-dominated Lebanese army to deploy to the border with Israel at the end of the 2006 war, so Livni failed to understand the significance of the inherent weakness of Fatah as she negotiated away Gush Etzion and Har Homa.
And she didn’t need Al-Jazeera’s campaign against the PA to understand that she was speaking to people who represent no one. That basic fact was already proven with Hamas’s victory in the 2006 elections.
THE TRUTHS exposed by the convulsive events of the past month make it abundantly clear that Israel lives in a horrible neighborhood. It is a neighborhood where popular democracy means war against Israel.
In this neck of the woods, it is not pragmatic to surrender. It is crazy.
Category Archives: Uncategorized
01/29/11
01/28/11
01/27/11
01/26/11
Taking aim at Iranian Holocaust denial
Yad Vashem launches new YouTube channel with survivors’ testimonials with Farsi subtitles to provide information about Holocaust.
Yad Vashem, Israel’s central Holocaust memorial and documentation center, launched on Sunday a new YouTube channel in Farsi in what officials said was a bid to counter Holocaust denial in Iran, which has become bon ton under the country’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The channel, mainly featuring video clips of survivors’ testimonials with Farsi subtitles, will join Yad Vashem’s channels in English, Hebrew, Russian, Spanish and Arabic. The museum website already has a page in Farsi, the language spoken by 60% of all Iranians, which provides basic information on the Holocaust and the activities of Yad Vashem.
“I turn to the Persian people,” Yaakov (Jackie) Handeli, a Holocaust survivor from Thessalonica told journalists at Yad Vashem. “Let them see me and invite me to Iran. I am the sole member left of my entire family, and only because I was born Jewish, nothing else.”
Ahmadinejad has at various times both denied the Holocaust and acknowledged it, albeit only to attack it as a pretext for the existence of Israel. Ahmadinejad’s virulent rhetoric on the Holocaust is often tied to his calls to eradicate “the Zionist regime,” both seen as preparing the ideological ground for attacking the Jewish state.
In 2006, Teheran sponsored what it called the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust, which then Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said was called to provide “an appropriate scientific atmosphere for scholars to offer their opinions.” In fact, the 67 attendees included an array of people denying that six million Jews were systematically killed by the Nazis during World War II.
Eldad Pardo, an Iran specialist at Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, said Holocaust denial in Iran ran deeper than presidential statements. Iranian anti-Semitism stemmed both from the traditional Shi’ite outlook on Jews as “impure” and a more modern, Fascist version of anti-Semitism imported from Europe.
“There‘s certainly a need for this new YouTube channel,” Pardo told The Media Line. “Since 2005, when Ahmadinejad came to power there has been a noticeable intensification in anti-Semitic rhetoric. No Iranian President has spoken like this before.”
During World War II, Iran was officially neutral, but in effect it was a “pro-Nazi, quasi-fascist regime,” Pardo said. “The Iranians, who viewed themselves as a superior Aryan race, assumed that Germany would win the war.”
Avner Shalev, chairman of Yad Vashem, spoke of what he called YouTube’s ability to bring survivors’ personal accounts to the attention of web users in Iran.
“The connection between one person and another is extraordinarily powerful,” he said. “We know this site won’t radically change people’s positions, but it is a good start for achieving change over time.”
Approximately one half of Iran’s population of 74 million was born after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and with 33 million web surfers, Iran enjoys one of the highest proportions of Internet users in the Middle East.
“The young population in Iran will now be able to get true information about what happened in the war,” Rena Shashua-Hasson, a Bulgarian Holocaust survivor, told The Media Line. “This new generation, which is half of Iran’s population, is misinformed by its government.”
Iran has tried to block access to internet sites in the past, especially around the time of the 2009 presidential elections, in which the incumbent Ahmadinejad claimed 62% of the vote amid widespread allegations of election fraud. But David Yerushalmi, professor of Iranian studies at Tel Aviv University, said Iran’s failure to completely restrict sites will give Yad Vashem a chance to bring its message.
“The importance of this site is that it might get to some of the population of Internet users in Iran,” Yerushalmi told The Media Line.
Pardo of Hebrew University said Yad Vashem’s message may be well-received by intellectuals in Iran who oppose the regime and its Holocaust denial. He said the only way to bring about change is to convince those already favorable to the ideas, and hope to empower them by providing facts.
“Today, hating Israel in Iran implies identifying with the regime,” Pardo said. “Many in Iran have become pro-Israeli by default, because they oppose Ahmadinejad.”
Davos 2011: Who needs a World Economic Forum?
Every year some of the world’s most powerful people come to the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos.
It’s quite a trek to this remote valley in the Swiss mountains, so what’s the draw? Tim Weber, the business editor of our website, explains:
What is the point of Davos?
For the participants of Davos the answer is straightforward: The WEF’s annual meeting is a great place to talk, think and get fresh ideas. After all, the five-day conference is packed with 239 sessions, ranging from serious geopolitics and business issues to cutting edge science and even the whimsical, such as a lesson on Shakespearean leadership.
And then there’s the networking. Put 2,500 business leaders, top politicians and clever academics in one place and let the schmoozing begin. If you’re going, or want to know what you’re missing, here’s our beginners’ guide to Davos.
But even for those outside looking in, Davos can have a purpose. The forum is a great opportunity to take the global temperature, pinpoint problems and get a feel for trends and new ideas. The UN’s former deputy secretary general, Lord Malloch-Brown calls it the “world’s grandest focus group”.
And it’s not all a talking shop. In previous years, especially during times of political tension, Davos provided the opportunity for foes to meet discretely, and in some cases even prepare the ground for peace.
So what are this year’s big issues?
The WEF organisers are prone to give their annual meetings quite ponderous mottos. This year they’ve settled on “Shared norms for a new reality”.
Here’s a translation: India, and especially China, are the up-and-coming superpowers, so how will we cope? The agenda is overflowing with sessions examining the shift of the power balance from West to East, and from North to South (think Brazil).
And then there’s the global economy. The past three meetings in Davos were dominated by the gloom and doom of the credit crunch and economic downturn. Bankers, hedge funds and all other things that are capitalism incarnate were fingered as scapegoats. This year, the organisers believe, it’s time to look ahead and focus on the recovery. Don’t forget that most Asian economies didn’t experience a downturn, they just saw growth slow a bit.
Finally, there are plenty of opportunities to discuss the usual gamut of risks and problems: poverty in the developing world; climate change; the eurozone crisis; cybersecurity and the social impact of the digital world.
That all sounds very high-minded…
Yes it does. And many participants are quite serious about the WEF’s official slogan: “Committed to improving the state of the world.”
But let’s get real. Davos is not just talk and hard work, it’s also about socialising and having fun, whether it is on the ski slopes all around this mountain resort, or during the many private dinners and parties that stretch into the wee hours.
The parties, by the way, are a pretty good indicator of the state of the economy – or the image of austerity that their hosts want to project.
Before the economic crisis, some parties were bordering on the excessive. Since 2007, most companies hosting parties have cut back, or turned big public events into ultra-exclusive private dinners.
The Google and KPMG parties are probably still the best place to watch millionaires and billionaires have a good time.
Is Davos still a good place for some celebrity spotting?
If you mean showbiz celebrities, you may have to look elsewhere.
The days when the likes of Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, Michael Douglas, Richard Gere and Sharon Stone drew the attention of the media (and Davos participants) are long gone.
But if you don’t fancy CEO spotting, there are still a few stars. There will be Davos regulars Bono, Peter Gabriel and Paulo Coelho, plus opera singer Jose Carreras, and actor and director Robert de Niro, both newcomers this year.
The real stars of the event, however, are politicians and business leaders such as Bill Gates, Google’s Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt, Bill Clinton, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev, and UK Prime Minister David Cameron.
The event is invitation-only, and companies who send their top brass to the Swiss mountains have to pay a chunky fee.
The forum has been around for quite a while, hasn’t it?
This is the 41st annual meeting of the World Economic Forum, although it’s name is more recent. The event started life as the European Management Symposium, the brainchild of a German professor of management studies, Klaus Schwab. Devised as an opportunity for chief executives to get together and swap tips for running a company and ideas about the state of the economy, it has evolved into one of the world’s top networking events.
The Swiss mountain village of Davos has nearly always been the host to the event, which is now one of the top money earners for the region.
01/25/11
01/24/11
* FM on leaked papers: Radical Islam is the true threat Lieberman says Hamas, not settlements, are the biggest danger to the PA.
* Moscow bombing: Carnage at Russia’s Domodedovo airport Moscow’s Domodedovo airport has been rocked by a bomb explosion that an airport spokesman says has killed 35 people.
* Palestinians attack al-Jazeera distorted talks leaks The Palestinian Authority has accused al-Jazeera TV of distortion, after it leaked documents purporting to show offers of major concessions to Israel.
* Arctic air blast prompts warnings An arctic blast from Canada is bringing brutally frigid air and wind chills expected to dip to 50 below zero to northern New England, prompting officials to warn residents to take precautions against the cold.
* Urgent action needed to avert global hunger A UK government-commissioned study into food security has called for urgent action to avert global hunger.
* Iran: Warships to sail to Mediterranean Fleet of ships may soon enter waters very close to Israeli coast as part of drill, says admiral
* Davos 2011: Who needs a World Economic Forum? Every year some of the world’s most powerful people come to the World Economic Forum in Davos.
* Hezbollah wins enough support to name new Lebanon PM Billionaire businessman and former premier set to clinch the nomination after Hezbollah and its allies, including Druze leader, tip balance with 11-member bloc voting in favor of Mikati.
* French G20 leadership to focus on commodity prices French President Nicolas Sarkozy has said that tackling instability in global commodity markets will be a key aim of France’s presidency of the Group of 20 major economies.
* Anti-Semitism, Circa 2010 The Auschwitz Death Camp was liberated on January 27, 1945.