Monthly Archives: September 2012

Muslims are no different, or why Bill Maher’s blood libel is bigotry

Juan Cole writes: Comedian Bill Maher puts himself in the company of “9/11 liberals” who believe that Islam as a religion is different and decidedly worse than all other religions. He said Friday that “at least half of all Muslims believe it is all right to kill someone who insults the Prophet.” His bad faith is immediately apparent in the reference to 9/11, not the work of mainstream Muslims but of a political cult whose members often spent their time in strip clubs.

Now, it may be objected that Maher has made a career of attacking all religions, and promoting irreverence toward them. So Islam is just one more target for him. But that tack wouldn’t entirely be true. He explicitly singles Islam out as more, much more homocidal than the other religions. He is personally unpleasant to his Muslim guests, such as Keith Ellison. His reaction to the youth of the Arab Spring gathering to try to overthrow their American-backed dictators was “the Arabs are revolting.” Try substituting “Jews” to see how objectionable that is.

Maher ironically has de facto joined an Islamophobic network that is funded by the Mellon Scaife Foundation and other philanthropies tied to the American Enterprise Institute, etc. which is mainly made up of evangelical Christians, bigoted American Jews who would vote for the Likud Party if they could, and cynical Republican businessmen and politicians casting about for something with which to frighten working class Americans into voting for them. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

America’s never-ending war against the world — 2005-2012

Since its creation, the United States has made eleven formal declarations of war, yet from 1798 to the present day, this country has used its armed forces abroad hundreds of times.

The Congressional Research Service has compiled a list of America’s use of military force abroad. The report is in a PDF which for the convenience of readers I have converted into five sections: 1798-1899, 1900-1985, 1986-1998, 1999-2004, and 2005-2012.

When viewed in its totality, this record makes clear that military force has in varying degrees always been the prism through which the U.S. government views the world. And keep in mind: this is just a list of the use of armed forces — it does not include the use of the CIA to topple governments, the support of proxy wars, the arming of insurgencies or the supply of the global weapons market which fuels conflict around the world.

  • 2005 Terrorism threat/Horn of Africa/Kosovo/Bosnia.
    On May 20, 2005, the President sent to Congress “consistent with the War Powers Resolution,” a consolidated report giving details of multiple ongoing United States military deployments and operations “in support of the global war on terrorism,” as well as operations in Iraq, where about 139,000 U.S. military personnel were deployed. U.S. forces are also deployed in Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, Eritrea, and Djibouti assisting in “enhancing counterterrorism capabilities” of these nations. The President further noted that U.S. combatequipped military personnel continued to be deployed in Kosovo as part of the NATO-led KFOR (1,700 personnel). Approximately 235 U.S. personnel are also deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of the NATO Headquarters-Sarajevo who assist in defense reform and perform operational tasks, such as counter-terrorism and supporting the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia.
  • 2005 Terrorism threat/Horn of Africa/Kosovo/Bosnia/Iraq.
    On December 7, 2005, the President sent to Congress “consistent” with the War Powers Resolution, a consolidated report giving details of multiple ongoing United States military deployments and operations “in support of the global war on terrorism,” and in support of the Multinational Force in Iraq, where about 160,000 U.S. military personnel were deployed. U.S. forces were also deployed in the Horn of Africa region—Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, and Djibouti—assisting in “enhancing counter-terrorism capabilities” of these nations. The President further noted that U.S. combat-equipped military personnel continued to be deployed in Kosovo as part of the NATO-led KFOR (1,700 personnel). Approximately 220 U.S. personnel were also deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of the NATO Headquarters-Sarajevo who assist in defense reform and perform operational tasks, such as “counter-terrorism and supporting the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia.”
  • 2006 Terrorism threat/Kosovo/Bosnia/Iraq.
    On June 15, 2006, the President sent to Congress “consistent” with the War Powers Resolution, a consolidated report giving details of multiple ongoing United States military deployments and operations “in support of the war on terror,” and in Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and as part of the Multinational Force (MNF) in Iraq. About 131,000 military personnel were deployed in Iraq. U.S. forces were also deployed in the Horn of Africa region, and in Djibouti to support necessary operations against al-Qaida and other international terrorists operating in the region. U.S. military personnel continue to support the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR). The U.S. contribution to KFOR was about 1,700 military personnel. The NATO Headquarters-Sarajevo was established in November 22, 2004 as a successor to its stabilization operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina to continue to assist in implementing the peace agreement. Approximately 250 U.S. personnel were assigned to the NATO Headquarters-Sarajevo to assist in defense reform and perform operational tasks, such as “counter-terrorism and supporting the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia.”
  • 2006 Lebanon.
    On July 18, 2006, the President reported to Congress “consistent” with the War Powers Resolution, that in response to the security threat posed in Lebanon to U.S. Embassy personnel and citizens and designated third country personnel,” he had deployed combat-equipped military helicopters and military personnel to Beirut to assist in the departure of the persons under threat from Lebanon. The President noted that additional combat-equipped U.S. military forces may be deployed “to Lebanon, Cyprus and other locations, as necessary.” to assist further departures of persons from Lebanon and to provide security. He further stated that once the threat to U.S. citizens and property has ended, the U.S. military forces would redeploy.

    • Continue reading →

Facebooktwittermail

America’s never-ending war against the world — 1999-2004

Since its creation, the United States has made eleven formal declarations of war, yet from 1798 to the present day, this country has used its armed forces abroad hundreds of times.

The Congressional Research Service has compiled a list of America’s use of military force abroad. The report is in a PDF which for the convenience of readers I have converted into five sections: 1798-1899, 1900-1985, 1986-1998, 1999-2004, and 2005-2012.

When viewed in its totality, this record makes clear that military force has in varying degrees always been the prism through which the U.S. government views the world. And keep in mind: this is just a list of the use of armed forces — it does not include the use of the CIA to topple governments, the support of proxy wars, the arming of insurgencies or the supply of the global weapons market which fuels conflict around the world.

  • 1999 Bosnia.
    On January 19, 1999, President Clinton reported to Congress that he was continuing to authorize the use of combat-equipped U.S. Armed Forces in Bosnia and other states in the region as participants in and supporters of the NATO-led Stabilization Force (SFOR). He noted that the U.S. SFOR military personnel totaled about 6,900, with about 2,300 U.S. military personnel deployed to Hungary, Croatia, Italy and other regional states. Also some 350 U.S. military personnel remain deployed in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) as part of the U.N. Preventive Deployment Force (UNPREDEP).
  • 1999 Kenya.
    On February 25, 1999, President Clinton reported to Congress that he was continuing to deploy U.S. military personnel in that country to assist in providing security for the U.S. embassy and American citizens in Nairobi, pending completion of renovations of the American embassy facility in Nairobi, subject of a terrorist bombing in August 1998.
  • 1999 Yugoslavia.
    On March 26, 1999, President Clinton reported to Congress that, on March 24, 1999, U.S. military forces, at his direction, and in coalition with NATO allies, had commenced air strikes against Yugoslavia in response to the Yugoslav government’s campaign of violence and repression against the ethnic Albanian population in Kosovo.
  • 1999 Yugoslavia/Albania.
    On April 7, 1999, President Clinton reported to Congress, that he had ordered additional U.S. military forces to Albania, including rotary wing aircraft, artillery, and tactical missiles systems to enhance NATO’s ability to conduct effective air operations in Yugoslavia. About 2,500 soldiers and aviators are to be deployed as part of this task force. The President also reported the deployment of U.S. military forces to Albania and Macedonia to support humanitarian disaster relief operations for Kosovar refugees.

    • Continue reading →

Facebooktwittermail

America’s never-ending war against the world — 1986-1998

Since its creation, the United States has made eleven formal declarations of war, yet from 1798 to the present day, this country has used its armed forces abroad hundreds of times.

The Congressional Research Service has compiled a list of America’s use of military force abroad. The report is in a PDF which for the convenience of readers I have converted into five sections: 1798-1899, 1900-1985, 1986-1998, 1999-2004, and 2005-2012.

When viewed in its totality, this record makes clear that military force has in varying degrees always been the prism through which the U.S. government views the world. And keep in mind: this is just a list of the use of armed forces — it does not include the use of the CIA to topple governments, the support of proxy wars, the arming of insurgencies or the supply of the global weapons market which fuels conflict around the world.

  • 1986 Libya.
    On March 26, 1986, President Reagan reported to Congress that, on March 24 and 25, U.S. forces, while engaged in freedom of navigation exercises around the Gulf of Sidra, had been attacked by Libyan missiles and the United States had responded with missiles.
  • 1986 Libya.
    On April 16, 1986, President Reagan reported that U.S. air and naval forces had conducted bombing strikes on terrorist facilities and military installations in Libya.
  • 1986 Bolivia.
    U.S. Army personnel and aircraft assisted Bolivia in anti-drug operations.
  • 1987-88 Persian Gulf.
    After the Iran-Iraq War resulted in several military incidents in the Persian Gulf, the United States increased U.S. joint military forces operations in the Persian Gulf and adopted a policy of reflagging and escorting Kuwaiti oil tankers through the Gulf. President Reagan reported that U.S. Navy ships had been fired upon or struck mines or taken other military action on September 23, October 10, and October 20, 1987 and April 19, July 4, and July 14, 1988. The United States gradually reduced its forces after a cease-fire between Iran and Iraq on August 20, 1988.
  • 1988 Panama.
    In mid-March and April 1988, during a period of instability in Panama and as pressure grew for Panamanian military leader General Manuel Noriega to resign, the United States sent 1,000 troops to Panama, to “further safeguard the canal, U.S. lives, property and interests in the area.” The forces supplemented 10,000 U.S. military personnel already in Panama.

    • Continue reading →

Facebooktwittermail

America’s never-ending war against the world — 1900-1985

Since its creation, the United States has made eleven formal declarations of war, yet from 1798 to the present day, this country has used its armed forces abroad hundreds of times.

The Congressional Research Service has compiled a list of America’s use of military force abroad. The report is in a PDF which for the convenience of readers I have converted into five sections: 1798-1899, 1900-1985, 1986-1998, 1999-2004, and 2005-2012.

When viewed in its totality, this record makes clear that military force has in varying degrees always been the prism through which the U.S. government views the world. And keep in mind: this is just a list of the use of armed forces — it does not include the use of the CIA to topple governments, the support of proxy wars, the arming of insurgencies or the supply of the global weapons market which fuels conflict around the world.

  • 1900 China.
    May 24 to September 28. American troops participated in operations to protect foreign lives during the Boxer rising, particularly at Peking. For many years after this experience a permanent legation guard was maintained in Peking, and was strengthened at times as trouble threatened.
  • 1901 Colombia (State of Panama).
    November 20 to December 4. U.S. forces protected American property on the Isthmus and kept transit lines open during serious revolutionary disturbances.
  • 1902 Colombia.
    April 16 to 23. U.S. forces protected American lives and property at Bocas del Toro during a civil war.
  • 1902 Colombia (State of Panama).
    September 17 to November 18. The United States placed
    armed guards on all trains crossing the Isthmus to keep the railroad line open, and
    stationed ships on both sides of Panama to prevent the landing of Colombian troops.
  • 1903 Honduras.
    March 23 to 30 or 31. U.S. forces protected the American consulate and the steamship wharf at Puerto Cortez during a period of revolutionary activity.
  • 1903 Dominican Republic.
    March 30 to April 21. A detachment of marines was landed to protect American interests in the city of Santo Domingo during a revolutionary outbreak.
  • 1903 Syria.
    September 7 to 12. U.S. forces protected the American consulate in Beirut when a local Muslim uprising was feared.
  • 1903-04 Abyssinia.
    Twenty-five marines were sent to Abyssinia to protect the U.S. Consul General while he negotiated a treaty.
  • 1903-14 Panama.
    U.S. forces sought to protect American interests and lives during and following the revolution for independence from Colombia over construction of the Isthmian Canal. With brief intermissions, United States Marines were stationed on the Isthmus from November 4, 1903, to January 21, 1914, to guard American interests.

    • Continue reading →

Facebooktwittermail

America’s never-ending war against the world — 1798-1899

Since its creation, the United States has made eleven formal declarations of war, yet from 1798 to the present day, this country has used its armed forces abroad hundreds of times.

The Congressional Research Service has compiled a list of America’s use of military force abroad. The report is in a PDF which for the convenience of readers I have converted into five sections: 1798-1899, 1900-1985, 1986-1998, 1999-2004, and 2005-2012.

When viewed in its totality, this record makes clear that military force has in varying degrees always been the prism through which the U.S. government views the world. And keep in mind: this is just a list of the use of armed forces — it does not include the use of the CIA to topple governments, the support of proxy wars, the arming of insurgencies or the supply of the global weapons market which fuels conflict around the world.

  • 1798-1800 Undeclared Naval War with France.
    This contest included land actions, such as that in the Dominican Republic, city of Puerto Plata, where marines captured a French privateer under the guns of the forts. Congress authorized military action through a series of statutes.
  • 1801-05 Tripoli.
    The First Barbary War included the U.S.S. George Washington and Philadelphia affairs and the Eaton expedition, during which a few marines landed with United States Agent William Eaton to raise a force against Tripoli in an effort to free the crew of the Philadelphia. Tripoli declared war but not the United States, although Congress authorized U.S. military action by statute.
  • 1806 Mexico (Spanish territory).
    Capt. Z. M. Pike, with a platoon of troops, invaded Spanish territory at the headwaters of the Rio Grande on orders from Gen. James Wilkinson. He was made prisoner without resistance at a fort he constructed in present day Colorado, taken to Mexico, and later released after seizure of his papers.
  • 1806-10 Gulf of Mexico.
    American gunboats operated from New Orleans against Spanish and French privateers off the Mississippi Delta, chiefly under Capt. John Shaw and Master Commandant David Porter.
  • 1810 West Florida (Spanish territory).
    Gov. Claiborne of Louisiana, on orders of the President, occupied with troops territory in dispute east of the Mississippi River as far as the Pearl River, later the eastern boundary of Louisiana. He was authorized to seize as far east as the Perdido River.
  • 1812 Amelia Island and other parts of east Florida, then under Spain.
    Temporary possession was authorized by President Madison and by Congress, to prevent occupation by any other power; but possession was obtained by Gen. George Matthews in so irregular a manner that his measures were disavowed by the President.
  • 1812-15 War of 1812.
    On June 18, 1812, the United States declared war between the United States and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.     Among the issues leading to the war were British interception of neutral ships and blockades of the United States during British hostilities with France.
  • 1813 West Florida (Spanish territory).
    On authority given by Congress, General Wilkinson seized Mobile Bay in April with 600 soldiers. A small Spanish garrison gave way. The U.S. advanced into disputed territory to the Perdido River, as projected in 1810. No fighting.
  • 1813-14 Marquesas Islands.
    U.S. forces built a fort on the island of Nukahiva to protect three prize ships which had been captured from the British.
  • 1814 Spanish Florida.
    Gen. Andrew Jackson took Pensacola and drove out the British with whom the United States was at war.

    • Continue reading →

Facebooktwittermail

America’s inevitable retreat from the Middle East

Pankaj Mishra writes: The murder of four Americans in Libya and mob assaults on the United States’ embassies across the Muslim world this month have reminded many of 1979, when radical Islamists seized the American mission in Tehran. There, too, extremists running wild after the fall of a pro-American tyrant had found a cheap way of empowering themselves.

But the obsession with radical Islam misses a more meaningful analogy for the current state of siege in the Middle East and Afghanistan: the helicopters hovering above the roof of the American Embassy in Saigon in 1975 as North Vietnamese tanks rolled into the city.

That hasty departure ended America’s long and costly involvement in Indochina, which, like the Middle East today, the United States had inherited from defunct European empires. Of course, Southeast Asia had no natural resources to tempt the United States and no ally like Israel to defend. But it appeared to be at the front line of the worldwide battle against Communism, and American policy makers had unsuccessfully tried both proxy despots and military firepower to make the locals advance their strategic interests.

The violent protests provoked by the film “Innocence of Muslims” will soon subside, and American embassies will return to normal business. But the symbolic import of the violence, which included a Taliban assault on one of the most highly secured American bases in Afghanistan, is unmistakable. The drama of waning American power is being re-enacted in the Middle East and South Asia after two futile wars and the collapse or weakening of pro-American regimes.

In Afghanistan, local soldiers and policemen have killed their Western trainers, and demonstrations have erupted there and in Pakistan against American drone strikes and reported desecrations of the Koran. Amazingly, this surge in historically rooted hatred and distrust of powerful Western invaders, meddlers and remote controllers has come yet again as a shock to many American policy makers and commentators, who have promptly retreated into a lazy “they hate our freedoms” narrative.

It is as though the United States, lulled by such ideological foils as Nazism and Communism into an exalted notion of its moral power and mission, missed the central event of the 20th century: the steady, and often violent, political awakening of peoples who had been exposed for decades to the sharp edges of Western power. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

Breaking the wall of religious dogma

At Open Democracy Sara Azmeh Rasmussen argues that commentary on the protests triggered by the anti-Islam film, Innocence of Muslims, has focused on the political and economic dimensions of the protests while side-stepping religious questions and specifically the issue of the infallibility of the prophet.

The tradition and collective experience of Islam has been shaped by a multitude of influences – and I believe that is grounds for cautious optimism. The explosive rage on behalf of the prophet is inextricably connected to dogma and doctrine developed in a phase of Islam long after the death of the prophet himself. The orthodox dogma of the Quran an eternally existing, rather than created, message, and the doctrine of the infallibility of the messenger of God, is a theological-philosophical pairing constructed in a time when civil war raged under the caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib. In the year 827 the dogma was consolidated by the caliph al-Ma´mun, after one of two rival factions, the Umayyads (today’s Sunnis), had marginalised Ali’s followers (the Shias). In other words, centralizing political power in the newly established Islamic empire went hand in hand with the cementing of the holy texts and elimination of all theological challenges. A significant school at the time, Mu´tazila, distanced itself from these irrational doctrines, and for that reason had to go into hiding.

But what has history from eight and ninth century Arabia to do with the attacks on embassies and widespread violence in response to a film critical of Islam produced in 21st century USA? Everything! To attack the ”sacredness” of the prophet was, logically, interpreted as an attack on the fundaments of the classical faith. In this rigid theological context, a caricature that humanises and reduces the prophet is an outright attack on the very underpinnings of the faith.

I’ve spent a lot of time pondering this in recent years. It has become apparent to me that this dogma must be challenged, not only to resolve the current conflict between speech versus faith, but to free the Islamic tradition from the cage that has led to intellectual and philosophical stagnation for centuries. This is the most significant barrier to a reform theology, and to the introduction of liberal ideas into Muslim culture and society.

A simple feat of logic should be what is needed to break this wall of dogma, on which such a large volume of classical theological literature is based. But as we know, logic isn’t the optimal way to counter what resides in the spiritual and religious sphere. Nevertheless, it is my moral duty to present this challenge to my own. I keep within the Islamic tradition, and will not support my argument with a single non-Muslim source. I adamantly believe we Muslims have the knowledge and tools we need for analysis within our own tradition. All we need is to read with new eyes.

The following story is found in classical Islamic history books and is known to most Muslims: shortly before the battle at Badr in the western park of the Arabian peninsula (624), and after the prophet Muhammad had placed his troops in formation, a disciple, Hubab, asks if this choice of military position is revealed by God, or is a tactical choice by the prophet himself. The prophet replies it was his own choice, to which Hubab replies: “Prophet, this isn’t the right position.” In the story, the prophet follows the advice of Hubab and orders the troops to march to the nearest source of water and block the enemy from accessing it. Only due to this new tactic do the Muslims win the battle, considered the turning point in the Muslim fight against the heathen tribes.

The prophet made a serious miscalculation in a critical war situation, in a crucial phase of Islamic history. The guidance that corrected it came from an individual in the Muslim community, not directly from God.

Facebooktwittermail

The Rafsanjanis’ influence in Iran once again growing?

Mehdi Hashemi Rafsanjani passing through immigration at Tehran airport late on Sunday

Reuters reports: The son of former Iranian president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani returned to Iran from exile to answer charges of inciting unrest after a disputed election in 2009, fuelling speculation that Rafsanjani’s influence in Tehran may once again be growing.

Mehdi Hashemi Rafsanjani arrived in Tehran late on Sunday, Fars news agency reported, having spent three years in the United Kingdom following his alleged involvement in the widespread protests that followed the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Mehdi Rafsanjani had spent several days in Dubai and been expected to return to Iran on Sunday, an independent source told Reuters.

Analysts say his return indicates a deal has been agreed with authorities to resolve the charges he faces, and suggests his father’s political fortunes may be reviving.

Akbar Rafsanjani played a central role in the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Tehran last month, being photographed walking alongside Iran’s most powerful authority, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and sat next to U.N. Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon.

As oil sanctions continue to bite and with a presidential election set for next year, some are tipping the pragmatic yet conservative Rafsanjani as a surprise candidate.

Facebooktwittermail

Iran set to block access to Google

The Guardian reports: Iran was set to block access to Google and Gmail in reaction to the anti-Islam film that has triggered protests across the Muslim world.

“Google and Gmail will be filtered throughout the country until further notice,” said Abdolsamad Khoramabadi, an Iranian official with the state-run body in charge of online censorship and computer crimes, according to the semi-official Ilna news agency. There was no indication as to whether the filtering would be temporary or permanent.

Khoramabadi claimed the decision was taken after Iranians pressed the authorities to filter the sites because of links to the film.

The Young Journalists Club, an Iranian semi-official news agency that broke the news, said the move was in reaction to YouTube’s refusal to take down the anti-Islam film, Innocence of Muslims.

Despite a series of regime-sponsored protests in Tehran over the film, many Iranians appear not to be bothered by it.

Facebooktwittermail

The life-endangering choice of coming out as gay in Iran

William Dameron writes: Recently I received an email from a filmmaker, Wajahat Ali Abbasi, who is filming a movie about the true story of two Iranian boys executed by public hanging in 2005 for the crime of loving each other.

My first thought after receiving this email was, This is another part of the world. It couldn’t happen here. But then I thought about our politicians who spew lies and hate about me; about the pastor from my home state of North Carolina who called for gays to be executed; about one of my own family members who called me sick and will not speak to me; about the former classmate who hurled a homophobic epithet at us during our high-school reunion.

Dehumanizing a population makes it possible to extinguish them. In eight countries, including Iran, being gay is punishable by death.

When I asked Wajahat what the motivation was for making this film, he told me of his friend, a bright, 20-year-old boy with a promising career. This boy came out to his friends and family and experienced relentless, daily bullying. He became afraid of leaving his home. One day, while returning from college, he disappeared. Two days later his body was found. His murder was declared a suicide.

The film, Sin, is Wajahat’s attempt to tell the personal story, to put a human face on the two boys who were blindfolded and hanged in July 2005. You can view his Kickstarter page here. The trailer is at the bottom of this post.

I learned some sobering facts while researching this post. One of them is that because I am gay, I am 41 times more likely to become a victim of a hate crime. The question is not whether I would die for love, but whether I will.

Facebooktwittermail

Syria: the foreign fighters joining the war against Bashar al-Assad

Ghaith Abdul-Ahad reports from Aleppo, alongside the internationals that the Syrian fighters refer to collectively as the “Turkish brothers”.

Inside the [commandeered] school was a Jordanian who often roamed the frontline with his Belgian gun, for which he had only 11 bullets. He was a secular and clean-shaven former officer in the Jordanian army who lived in eastern Europe running an import-export business. He had come to Aleppo without telling his wife and children where he was going.

“This is my duty,” he said. “Originally I was from Palestine. I know what this [Syrian] regime did to the Palestinians, shelling the camps in Lebanon, assassinating the commanders. Half of the miseries of our nation are because of Israel and the other half are because of the Syrian regime.

“Many Arab men I know want to come and fight. Some lack the means and others the energy, but so many people hate this regime. For 20 years the regime has destroyed the Arab world.”

If some of the foreign fighters in Aleppo were callow, others such as Abu Salam al Faluji boasted extraordinary experience. Abu Salam, a rugged Iraqi with a black keffiyeh wrapped around his head, said he had fought the Americans in Falluja when he was a young man. Later he joined al-Qaida in Iraq and spent many years fighting in different cities before moving to Syria to evade arrest. These days he was a commander of the one of the muhajiroun units.

I found him watching a heated debate between the Syrian commanders about how to defend the buckling frontline.

The government attack had begun as predicted and mortars were exploding in the streets nearby, the sound of machine-gun fire ricocheting between the buildings. The mortars were hammering hard against the walls, sending a small shower of shrapnel and cascading glass, but Abu Salam stood unflinching. One Syrian, breathing hard, said that he had fired three times at the tank and the RPG didn’t go off.

“Don’t say it didn’t go off,” Abu Salam admonished him. “Say you don’t know how to fire it. We used to shoot these same RPGs at the Americans and destroy Abrams tanks. What’s a T72 to an Abrams?

“Our work has to focus on IEDs and snipers,” he told the gathering. “All these roofs need fighters on top and IEDs on the ground. You hunt them in the alleyways and then use machine-guns and RPGs around corners.

“The problem is not ammunition, it’s experience,” he told me out of earshot of the rebels. “If we were fighting Americans we would all have been killed by now. They would have killed us with their drone without even needing to send a tank.

“The rebels are brave but they don’t even know the difference between a Kalashnikov bullet and a sniper bullet. That weakens the morale of the men.

“They have no leadership and no experience,” he said. “Brave people attack, but the men in the lines behind them withdraw, leaving them exposed. It is chaos. This morning the Turkish brothers fought all night and at dawn they went to sleep leaving a line of Syrians behind to protect them. When they woke up the Syrians had left and the army snipers had moved in. Now it’s too late. The army has entered the streets and will overrun us.”

He seemed nonchalant about the prospect of defeat.

“It is obvious the Syrian army is winning this battle, but we don’t tell [the rebels] this. We don’t want to destroy their morale. We say we should hold here for as long as Allah will give us strength and maybe he will make one of these foreign powers come to help Syrians.”

The irony was not lost on Abu Salam how the jihadis and the Americans – bitter enemies of the past decade – had found themselves fighting on the same side again. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

The unjust fate of an American ‘terrorist’

Charlotte Silver writes: Before Hamas was designated a “terrorist organisation” in the United States, it wasn’t.

And before Sami al-Arian, The Holy Land Five, and the countless other Palestinian Americans whose lives have been wrung through harrowing immigration and counter-terrorist proceedings for their connections – however slight – to Gaza, there was Muhammad Salah.

It’s useful to view the shift in the US relationship to Hamas alongside the story of Muhammad Salah, a Palestinian-born citizen of the United States, who was seized in 1993 by Israel when he was on his way into the Gaza Strip to distribute humanitarian aid. The aid had been raised in the wake of Israel’s mass deportation of 415 men from Gaza to South Lebanon in the dead of winter in 1992.

In 1993, Salah was a grocer in the suburbs of Chicago; a husband and father of four children. He was described as soft-spoken and keen on community volunteer work.

Today, Salah is the sole person residing in the US who is labelled a “terrorist”. The status, assigned to him in 1995, has rendered his every movement, purchase, transaction and life decision – from the mundane to the substantive – subject to review by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).

“He is, essentially, internally banished. He cannot engage with anyone, and no one can engage with him,” said David Cole, an attorney with the Centre for Constitutional Rights, who is representing him in his recently filed suit against the federal government.

“Internal banishment” is a form of punishment in which the government determines with whom the sentenced is permitted to speak. It gained notoriety by its wide use under South Africa’s apartheid regime.

Matt Piers, who has represented Salah since 1998, believes the conditions of Salah’s sentence are even more severe than those imposed in South Africa [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

Gaza’s future looks even bleaker than its past

NPR reports: Gaza’s statistics make grim reading. A recent report by the United Nations says the Gaza Strip will be unlivable by 2020 if nothing is done to alleviate the situation in the tiny coastal territory.

According to the report, despite a recent pickup in the economy, by almost every indicator, Palestinians in Gaza are worse off than they were in the 1990s.

Even as the infrastructure is crumbling, the population is booming. That, coupled with dwindling resources and restrictions on trade and travel by neighbors Egypt and Israel, has meant the situation for the 1.8 million Palestinians who live in Gaza is increasingly desperate.

Facebooktwittermail

Libyan authorities give Islamist militia two days to leave their bases

The Guardian reports: The Libyan authorities have given armed groups two days to vacate military bases and compounds as they seek to capitalise on the wave of people power that drove an Islamist militia from Benghazi at the weekend.

Jihadist militias in Derna, Libya’s Islamist stronghold, threw in the towel on Sunday, withdrawing from their stronghold and announcing they were disbanding to avoid a repeat of the scenes in Benghazi in which angry crowds sent armed gunmen fleeing. One of the routed militias was blamed for an attack on the US consulate two weeks ago that left four Americans dead including the ambassador, Chris Stevens.

The de facto head of state, Muhammad Magariaf, president of Libya’s parliament, met Benghazi politicians and security officials, anxious to fill a security vacuum that has emerged from the weekend violence, in which at least 11 people died.

“The army chief Yussef al-Mangoush and Muhammad Magariaf have ordered all illegitimate militias should be removed from compounds and hand over their weapons to the national army,” said Adel Othman al-Barasi, a spokesman for the defence ministry, according to Reuters. “A committee made up by the military police has been formed to take over the compounds and the weapons and hand these over to the army.”

Facebooktwittermail

New Arab realities

Rami G. Khouri identifies five genuinely historic, new and meaningful developments in many of the Arab states in transformation, after 21 months of the Arab uprisings:

1. New legitimacies are coming into play, including legitimate governance structures, leaders and political actors, replacing their former counterparts that enjoyed incumbency but had long ago lost legitimacy. The transition from mass public humiliation to newfound legitimacy in national governance and the exercise of power is the single most important foundational change that is taking place in these Arab uprisings and national reconfigurations. These new legitimacies provide the foundation on which all other new developments occur, especially new national systems of governance and citizen rights.

2. New actors now participate in the process of contested politics that will shape national governments systems and policies at home and abroad; these include most notably revolutionary and other youth, individual citizens with the power to choose and change governments and presidents, Muslim Brothers and more hard-line Salafist Islamists (some of whom lead or participate in coalition governments), tribes (some with militias), secular-nationalist political parties, the armed forces that now engage in open rather than secret politics, the judiciary, civil society groups, and private sector interests.

We should note three important aspects of these new players. They all emanate from these Arab societies and did not parachute in from abroad, and they now operate in public and with populist democratic legitimacy, rather than working in the shadows as many of them did before, including the military, tribal forces, the private sector, and some Islamists. They reflect the important development that very few people are now excluded or marginalized, as was the case previously when the vast majority of citizens were shut out from the decision-making process. And, they evolve and change, as they share or seek power via the consent of the governed; they soften or harden positions and clarify their policies in response to citizen demands, and so they act in a political manner, reflecting their need to remain legitimate and credible in the eyes of their supporters and the public at large. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

Israeli occupation strong as ever on Capitol Hill

Benjamin Netanyahu flanked by Congressional courtiers Reid and McConnell.

Ali Gharib writes: After midnight yesterday, the Senate voted 90 to 1 to express the “sense of the Congress” as weighing in on the debate about what red lines the U.S. should declare against Iran. You’ll remember this issue as the one roiling the relationship between Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama at the moment. On the Hill, almost everyone — including most of the Democrats — just sided with Netanyahu.

The resolution, initially introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) in the Spring, laid out a non-binding position that “strongly supports United States policy to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability” and “rejects any United States policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable Iran.” Obama has set his red line at Iran producing nuclear weapons rather than the “capability” to do so, a phrase loaded with a special yet ill-defined meaning in proliferation matters.

The “capability” debate was initially framed as one over “containment” in February, and hawks like Graham found little bipartisan support until their position became a centerpiece of the AIPAC policy conference in March. But the initial resolution from Graham in May stalled. Then things rose into the national consciousness.

This month, an unprecedented campaign by Benjamin Netanyahu to get Obama to shift his Iran red line drew jeers from liberals and even Members of Congress. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) upbraided Netanyahu for interjecting himself in American politics. AIPAC took notice, e-mailing its members last week with articles on Obama’s refusal to lower his threshold for war and Netanyahu’s denials of interference. The debate seemed, for now, over, with Obama victorious. Then this week, Majority Leader Reid surprised everyone by re-introducing the Graham resolution.

Facebooktwittermail