We Didn't Start the Fire

Turkey Tightens the Noose

2010-06-11T11:09:00.000-05:00

Turkey is expanding trade connections with its Arab allies around Israel, including Syria and Lebanon. On the surface, this might look fine, but there seem to be a connection between the Flotilla aftermath and Turkey's newly "rediscovered" friends:

Arab support
Erdogan's call was echoed by many Arab leaders.
Saad al-Hariri, Lebanon's prime minister, said the Middle East was suffering under Israel's "criminal and barbaric'' attitude.
"We support Turkey's demands not only about the international investigation, but for Israel to apologise."
Ahmed Aboul Gheit, Egypt's foreign minister, said: "We support Turkey's demand to try those behind these acts."

What does this mean to Israel? So far, no response.

"Hamas is now one of the biggest employers in Gaza."

2010-06-08T18:34:00.000-05:00

From BBC news. Let's keep this in mind for the future, it will come to play soon.

Who Sank the Flotilla?

2010-06-03T15:51:00.112-05:00

One thing is clear: Nothing was a breeze for Israel about operation "Sea Breeze," the infamous military operation that took place four days ago in front of Gaza's coast.

Nine dead civilians and seven injured Israeli soldiers? Yes and yes. Destroyed reputation and an angry world? You got it. Damaged connections with one of its only Islamic allies? Yep. Hamas gaining more publicity and positive PR? Indeed. So what happened? What were the Israelis thinking when they attacked the Mavi Marmara, seemingly unprovoked, full of peace demonstrators in international waters? What county would do such a thing? No country, including Israel.

The Goal of the Passengers

The flotilla, a formation of six ships loaded with humanitarian supplies, set sail from Cyprus our days ago. Their primary goal was clear, as we can learn directly from their website: "We want to break the siege of Gaza." their secondary goal, as it turns out, was not to deliver the supplies to the needy Palestinians under siege in the city, but to die as martyrs:
"as much as they wanted to reach Gaza, the other option [martyrdom] was more desirable.."

(A better video clip, containing an interview with Mavi Marmara passengers, cannot be embedded, but can be found here.)

The people aboard the ships knew what was waiting for them, and sought to provoke a violent reaction from Israel. They were well prepared to fight and die, as evident from several videos just like the above one.

When a ship full of un-inspected cargo and people sails toward an area under naval blockade, it will be stopped before it reaches its destination. This is exactly what happened to the Flotilla. Can you imagine a ship sent from the Middle East toward the US would be allowed to dock in post-9/11 New York City without inspection and military intervention, humanitarian aid or not? Would you trust the kindness of its passengers, if you knew they were sponsored by an organization with ties to global terrorism? Would you even need any excuse at all to justify a military intervention? Probably not. When the Flotilla left Cyprus, the question was not rather or not a military conflict will take place, but when.

Israel Repeatedly Warns the Mavi Marmara
Israel did not just storm the ship without warning. The Flotillas were intercepted after repeated efforts from Israel to stop them peacefully:

As a matter of fact, Al -Jazeera gladly broadcasted how "evil" Israel was preparing for the ships, sending them a clear message that they will be stopped, even before they set sail. Ignoring Israel's pleas and finally threats, The ships continued heading toward Gaza; the passengers made their choice.

The Flotilla was sponsored by the Turkish Insani Yardim Vakfi (The Foundation for Human Rights) [IHH], a terrorist organization through its connections to the “Union of Good,” according to Israel, the US and France (see link below). What was said to be medical supplies, could have been explosives. What was said to be construction materials, could have been pipes used to create more home-made Qassam rockets, and concrete to reinforce underground smuggling tunnels. The people who said they want to help could have easily joined the Hamas lines and fight Israel as terrorists. As a matter of fact, if to judge from the various evidence here, these passengers would probably enlist themselves happily. Such possibilities are not inventions of a delirious mind. As a matter of fact, most of the aid delivered into the hands of the Hamas under the disguise of "humanitarian aid" is used to sponsor terrorism.

Above: Funds from the "union of good" used directly to fund terrorism. (source: Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies (C.S.S))

Despite all of this, Israel was willing to allow the humanitarian aid to pass into Gaza. [It should be noted that at the time of this writing, the aid was already delivered to Gaza, and refused by the Hamas, which represents the Palestinians in Gaza.]

Passengers Attack the Israeli Commandos
Israel managed to capture five of the six ships with no use of force and no injuries among passengers or Israeli soldiers. The system Israel chose, intercepting the ships with as little resistance and violance as possible, worked five times out of six: such was the effectiveness of the well-trained Israeli soldiers who did their job quickly, professionally, and as ethically as possible.

But the passengers of Mavi Marmara transformed from peace-keeping humanitarians to a pack of warmongers, and lunched at the Israeli commandos with improvised weapons. Notice no shootings took place until a couple of soldiers have landed; they were under strict orders not to use their guns. Those of you who understand Hebrew can hear the shock and confusion in the radio once the commanders of the operations realized the passengers are shooting at them in the first video:

.

Without provocation from the soldiers, who slid down the ropes with their backup pistols holstered, the blood-thirsty mob grabbed weapons which were prepared as soon as the ship left the harbor in Cyprus. A crowd of frightened pacifists would not have the time to prepare slingshots and gasmasks; they would not have the knowledge to use grenades and guns which were stored safely with the commandos. They would not flail chains, and toss an Israeli solider overboard. But these passengers did.

Even after the first solider was thrown overboard and another severely beatten, the soldiers did not open fire. Fighting against the crowd, they tried to protect their comrades. Only after it was clear the situation is out of control, the soldiers asked for permission to use live ammunition. After they were bitten, hit by metal rods and baseball clubs, and stabbed with knives. They had to fight for their lives, or they would have ended up dead by the hands of the "pacifists" aboard the Mavi Marmara.

Israel had no interest in starting a fight. After all, stoping the flotilla peacefully was in their favor. They only wished to stop and intercept a potentially dangerous cargo, delivered by a dangerous group with known terrorists connections.

As the world condemns Israel for its actions, we should consider: who did truly benefit from this situation? Not Israel with its wounded soldiers and destroyed global reputation. Not the dead “peace” seeking people on top of the Mavi Marmara, unless we consider their martyrdom. Who then? Ask the terrorist organization who is now using the unnecessary death of so-called innocent passengers to provoke the sympathy of people such as yourself.

And the aid? They won’t even deliver it to their own people, even though Israel has sent it to them:

Israel has filled 20 trucks with cargo from the captured ships, mostly medical supplies, clothes, blankets and toys, but has not been able to take them into the territory, military spokeswoman Avital Leibovitz told reporters.

"Unfortunately at this point the Palestinians are not willing to accept the cargo so the trucks that are loaded are not entering the Gaza Strip," she said.
"Our understanding is that Hamas is actually stopping the entrance of this humanitarian aid," she added.

Hamas is already busy demanding Israel releases all the "peace fighters" (Israel released almost all of them and sent them back to Turkey), among other things that has nothing to do with this incident. The Palestinian people and their aid? They can wait until Hamas is done negotiating.

US involvment in Georgia

2008-08-23T16:56:00.010-05:00

Russia stays in key points around South Ossetia, creating a buffer zone (brown belt.)

A bigger map of South Ossetia:

Russia

started the invasion into Georgia after Georgia attacked South Ossetia, an independence-seeking region of the country after the fall of the USSR. Unlike its own people, the UN never recognized Oessetia's independence.

The media at large commented on Russia's invasion to Georgia; however, the attack on South Ossetia which preceded it is poorly covered by major media outlets. According to several sources, Russia sees Georgia as a tool in the hands of the US administration. To reinforce their statement, they pointing out the fact that 2000 Georgian troops left the Iraqi campaign in order to defend their own country.

In 2002 the Bush administration set up an 18-month, $65m programme aimed at training and equipping Georgia's impoverished army.
The programme was part of America's war on terror and it started after the US confirmed Russian allegations about the presence of Chechen and al-Qaeda fighters in Georgia's Pankisi Gorge, on the border with Chechnya.
Details are still to be announced of the new permanent programme, but analysts say that any sort of US military presence is good news for the Georgian Government, which sees the US engagement as a security guarantee against Georgia's northern neighbor - Russia.

The US has been helping the Georgian army for the last 4 years, and American involvement in the ongoing conflict was to be expected ( from EUCOM):

In the spirit of the NATO Partnership for Peace program, soldiers from the United States, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Ukraine will conduct the joint training exercise IMMEDIATE RESPONSE 2008 at Vaziani Military Base in Georgia beginning July 5, 2008.

The operation took place at the Vaziani Military Base (41.6947 , 45.0467), about 50 miles from the conflict zone. Is it possible that American soldiers who was actively involved in training and supplying Georgian soldiers also fought the Russians? Is it possible that American soldiers have died by the hands of the Russians, or worse, were taken is POWs?

2007-02-15T08:48:00.000-05:00

Dennis Ross writes about "The Art of Possible Peace."

The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same

2007-01-12T15:56:00.001-05:00

In a speech from the White House library, President Bush claimed responsibility for the failing Iraqi campaign and offered means to deliver victory: 20,000 additional troops into Iraq.

"The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people, and it is unacceptable to me," he said. But unlike most Americans -- those in congress and ordinary citizens -- Bush's solution is to "help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad." In order to do so, "I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq," said the President to millions of viewers worldwide.

In his speech, the President explained the major problem with the old strategy was insurgents returning to cleared villages and neighbourhoods after U.S. forces left. This time, however, "we'll have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared," said Bush. He also explained that Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, will allow U.S. troops to enter neighbourhoods and areas they could not before. The first such neighborhood that comes to mind is Sadr city, formally known as Saddam city, a poor neighborhood in northern Baghdad which serves as a home and base of operations for the Mahdi Army, a powerful Shiite militia lead by Shiite clerk Moqtada al-Sadr.

Perhaps it will work this time around, some say, due to one major difference: Maliki's advisers publicly threatened Sadr in front of the media.

According to Time magazine, "top Maliki adviser Sadiq al-Rikabi criticize Sadr: 'You cannot be in the government and working against the government at the same time. You cannot be a part of the government while breaking the law. If you're going to be a part of the government, you should respect the institutions of the government.' " An AP article on Yahoo news goes even further: "Iraq's prime minister has told Shiite militiamen to surrender their arms or face an all-out assault by U.S.-backed Iraqi forces, senior Iraqi officials said Wednesday," it reads (credit goes to LGF).

Sadr has been Maliki's poppet for a long time. When U.S. forces tried to raid Sadr city, Maliki condemned the attack, arguing the real enemies of the democratic government are Sunni extremists associated with Al-Qaeda. Maliki is a Shiite at the head of an almost exclusively Shiite Iraqi government. He has never previously dared to go against Sadr, a highly-regarded political and religious Shiite figure, even though the Mahdi Army was behind several attacks on U.S. soldiers and carried out many raids against the Sunnis, contributing to the overall sectarian rift in the country.

But the reporters only spoke to Maliki's advisers, not to him directly. And Maliki has learned the rules of the game. While President Bush has proved beyond any doubt that he is a man of his word - for better or for worse - he doesn't seem to realize that his Iraqi counter pendent t is far from it. Maliki could sing a completely different tune in a couple of weeks, when American forces are standing ready to charge into Sadr city.

Sadr is rooted well within the Iraqi government, as Rikabi claimed. His Shiite Militia has many followers, all of who would like to see a Shiite country come into being, with the Sunnis having no part in it.

Even the most optimistic Bush-believers would have hard time explaining the "respectable manner" in which Saddam was executed by hanging in a warehouse-looking facility. His executioners praised Sadr three times, chanting his name, as they launched Saddam unto his death. Sadr is more than just a political figure, he is a saint to government officials. It is highly doubtful anyone in the Iraqi army will dare to attack him or his malitia directly, even if Maliki actually lives up to his word.

The Syrian Perspective

2007-01-04T14:02:00.001-05:00

Struggling with a worsening economic situation, Syria finally gets a break: The Iraqi Study Group (ISG) report helped put "banned" Syria back on the Western diplomatic map, allowing it to talk to the U.S. and other Western powers present in the Middle East.

Senator Bill Nelson of Florida met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, defying the Bush Administration policy. President Bush officially signed Executive Order 13338 in March 2004, a doctrine which restricts financial and diplomatic connections with the country.

An article from the Syrian Tishreen, a Syrian-government newspaper and a mouthpiece for President Assad, reports that the Syrian leader met with Nelson and discussed ways of "scheduling [timely] withdrawal from Iraq and preserving its unity." Discussions also included the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the accumulating Lebanese crisis. An article from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz quotes Senator Nelson saying "Assad 'clearly indicated a willingness to cooperate' in controlling its border with Iraq." The article also brings forth the controversy between Syria's willingness to help now with Iraq, whereas it was highly critical of the invasion in 2003.

However, The U.S. Administration remains doubtful and suspicious of Assad's willingness to help. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow told the media "We've talked to Syria. We have diplomatic relations with Syria. I think it's a real stretch to think the Syrians don't know where we stand or what we think. It's not as if there's been failure to communicate. The communication has been crystal clear."

And the Administration has been doing more than just hinting that Syria's regime is not a trustworthy partner in the new post-Saddam Middle East. Time Magazine claimed that "The Bush Administration has been quietly nurturing individuals and parties opposed to the Syrian government in an effort to undermine the regime of President Bashar Assad," on December 19. The article reported that "part of the effort would be run through a foundation operated by Amar Abdulhamid, a Washington-based member of a Syrian umbrella opposition group known as the National Salvation Front (NSF)." This report created echo in the Middle-Eastern Bloggers' community, mainly due to the fact that Amar Abduhlamid is a blogger himself. (in a response to the Time's article, Syrian blogger Abdulhamid claims that while he would "really like to see our illustrious regime overthrown and reconciled to the dustbin of history (to borrow a term that is so dear to the hearts of regime spokesmen), news of my involvement in such “sinister” plot come as news to me as well. I was never aware of that fact that I was that creative.")

The plot's existence was later approved by the U.S. government in an article published by the Jerusalem Post.

Syria had been ruled by the Assad family since 1970, when Hafez al-Assad took control of the country by force during a military coup. Bashar al-Assad, his son, took his place as the head of state in the year 2000. Syria's Alawite leadership represents about 10 percent of the population (According to the CIA Factbook , Syria's Alwites, Druze and other minor Muslim sects together represent about 16 percent of the country's total population), while the majority Sunnis make about 75 percent of the population of the country.

Syria's economy is highly dependent on agriculture and oil. According to the Wold Bank Website, "Syria’s GDP is highly dependent on the oil and agriculture sectors, both subject to uncertainties due to changes in oil prices and rain dependency respectively. The oil sector provides half of the government’s revenues and about two thirds of its export receipts. The agriculture sector, for its part, contributes to about 30 percent of GDP and employment." It also predicts oil reserves in the country are going to deplete in 10 to 15 years.

In an interview for this blog, Dr. Ely Karmon of the Israeli Institute of Counter-Terrorism in Israel explained that the Syrians are mimicking Iran by negotiating with the West - they would say one thing at the table and then a completely different version to their own people and militant allies, like the Hezbollah.

Another point of interest for Syria, according to Karmon, is Iranian nuclear race: Syria and Iran already have a strong diplomatic (and military) connection; if Iran succeeds with its nuclear plans, Syria will follow suit, using Iran as their excuse. The Counterterrorism blog has more information about Syria's nuclear status: "new reports show that Damascus is up to no good. Indeed, while world attention is rightly focused on the nuclear capabilities of Iran and North Korea, Syria has been quietly — but quickly — advancing its own secret nuclear program," writes Olivier Guitta, one of the blog's contributors.

Regarding the Syrian heating situation with Israel, Karmon explains that what really interests the Syrians is their control of Lebanon. They are not really worried about Israel attacking them: "The Syrians know that Israel and the U.S. are worried that if the [Syrian] government will collapse, a new and more radical leadership will emerge," he explained, contradicting the logic behind the plot discussed above. An article from a certain Lebanese news-site (unfortunately, the link is lost) reviled that Lebanese authorities and military recently found weapons and explosives in a Syrian-loyal political party center in Southern Lebanon, further proving the existence of Syrian influence in the country.

Media reports from Israel suggest a coming war with Syria as early as next summer. The Syrians have been watching the June war in Lebanon carefully and learned an important lesson, a similar to the one Americans learned in Iraq. An article in the Jerusalem Post affirms just how literally the Syrians have taken the "Hezbollah way": "villages recently built by Syria along the border are planned to be used as "death traps" for IDF troops in Hizbullah-inspired attacks. Since this summer's war in Lebanon, Syria... has invested large amounts of money in replicating Hizbullah military tactics, particularly in establishing additional commando units and fortifying its short- and long-range missile array."

Eyes on Syria

2006-12-20T03:13:00.001-05:00

With the publication of the Iraqi Study Group report, some focus has shifted from Iran and its nuclear program toward the role of Syria in the Middle East.

Ashar Al-Assad has enjoyed increasing popularity in recent days. He is slowly entering a peace-negotiator shoes, with the Palestinians, Israel, Lebanon and Iraq all on his plate, under the watchful eye of the West and the U.S. in particular. Assad "urged Russia to take a leading role in sponsoring peace talks in the Middle East" yesterday, according to the The Lebanese Daily Star.

Israel remains skeptical regarding Assad's proposal for peace. The Golan Heights dilemma is probably the center of discussion. Lebanon, for its part, does not want the Syrians to interfere with their politics, even though the latest demonstrations, still in Beirut, strengthen Hezbollah and the pro-Syrian opposition to the government there. Meanwhile, the U.S. demands that Syria stop allowing insurgents cross into Iraq through its borders.

Syria's role is going to be crucial in the next few days, as it has indirect control on all 3 civil wars going on in the Middle East: In Gaza, in Lebanon and in Iraq. It should be watched carefully.

The Third Civil-War

2006-12-17T13:47:00.002-05:00

The attempted assassination on the Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh escalated the "minuscule" civil-war between the Hamas and Fatah Palestinian fractions in Gaza last week.

Haniyeh's son and one of his advisers were wounded and one of his personal body guards was killed in the attempt.

In a speech yesterday Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas affirmed that he is going to carry on with general elections, giving the Hamas-led government "last chance" for a unity government with the Fatah, according to officials there.

President Mahmoud Abbas comes from the Fatah party, while Haniyeh, the prime minister, is the head of the Hamas party in the territories. The Palestinians have been under economicsiege since Hamas won the elections in March, as most western countries - Israel, the U.S. and Europe - consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization. Since then, Abbas has been trying to construct a unity government with his former party and the Hamas, without success. He publicly announced the negotiations reached a dead end when U.S. State Secretary Condoleezza Rice visited the area.

According to Palestinian law the president announces general elections, but he has no constitutional power to do so before the government's official term is over. According to Al-Quds (linked above), Abbas is practicing his right from the Palestinian Basic Law to protect the people from the Hammas government which, according to him, has increased Palestinian suffering.

More on this later.

Update (12/19/06): The assassination attempt on Haniyeh last Thursday was not the first in the series of violent events taking place in Gaza. Another murder that took place on Monday December 11 might have been the spark that resulted in the most recent civil war in the region.

Three Children Shot Dead

A car that was carrying three children home from school was the target of unknown gunmen. The children , along with the driver, were all shot dead in a lethal drive-by.

The target of the shooting and the father of the children was, according to an AP article published in the Los Angeles Times, "intelligence officer Baha Balousheh, a loyalist of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah Party," who was once "a lead interrogator in a crackdown on the now-ruling Islamic militant Hamas movement." He was far from the scene of crime when the brutal execution took place.

Later that day, Baha Balouseh "blamed the rival Hamas [party], although the Islamic movement denied responsibility and denounced the killings."

The image to the right, taken from Corbis, reads: "Senior intelligence officer Baha Balousheh looks at the body of one of his three sons, who were killed in a drive-by shooting, during their funeral in Gaza City."

The assassination attempt against Hamas' Haniyah took place three days later, on Thursday. Fatah, the organization of both Abbas and Balousheh, was blamed by Fatah officials even though they denied any involvement at the time. In an article that was published today, Ynet reports Hamas militants fought with Fatah Intelligence men.

Tensions Increase

The assassination attempt Thursday was followed by Abbas' provocative speech on Saturday night. In his speech, Abbas bluntly blamed Hamas for the recent Palestinian distress and the economic isolation from Israel, the U.S. and Europe. Abbas, while explaining he exercises his constitutional right of the Palestinian "Basic Law," called for early election. He did not specify a date for these elections.

Tensions between the rival Hamas and Fatah groups flared to street skirmishes after the speech and the assassination, according to CNN:

Fatah and Hamas fighters fought an intense gun battle near Abbas' office in Gaza, leaving a 19-year-old woman dead, medical sources said. Abbas was in the West Bank at the time.
And sources in Fatah's Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades said that fighters from Hamas' militant wing, Izzedine al Qassam, killed one of their field commanders and kidnapped one of their members.

Heniyah and Abbas, the leaders of the rival Hamas and Fatah groups, met and discussed a ceasefire, which "took effect shortly after midnight Sunday," says the same article. But the truce was broken Monday, with both parties shooting and kidnapping officials of one another. Seven Fatah members and eleven Hamas memebers were kidnapped.

Truce Crumbles

The violence continues in Gaza today , as the truce crumbles. Ynet reported shooting near a hospital in Gaza. Al Jazeera reports:

Rival Palestinians also clashed outside the headquarters of the Fatah-controlled general intelligence agency in Gaza on Tuesday, a Palestinian security source said.

The source said the clash broke out when Hamas gunmen fired a rocket-propelled grenade at the agency's compound in northern Gaza

With Tuesday approaching an end in Gaza, the Palestinians are on the verge of their own civil war.

Timeline

Below is a diagram of the recent chain of events in Gaza. The media at large, as shown above, has connected the last four events together as causes for the recent uprising, but no source - beside Al Quds, above - even mentions the assassination that took place on December 11.
I for one, believe they are strongly related, considering all the facts:

Update: a quick report from Al Jazeera. Both Leaders call for another truce, after the first one has been broken.

Also, take a look at this related post, in which I comment on an in-depth article about Abbas and Haniyeh.

A Short Break

2006-12-14T17:55:00.000-05:00

Again, as I have to finish up school projects and assignments, I have to take some time off.
There's a lot going on, and I will post something as soon as I can - probably tonight or tomorrow.
In the meantime, enjoy this picture...

Iraqi Study Group Findings

2006-12-08T10:02:00.001-05:00

The Iraqi Study Group has finally completed and released its findings yesterday in a book of 160 pages: "The Iraq Study Group Report: The Way Forward - A New Approach"

The report can be accessed online (pdf) either through the Baker Institute website or the United State Institute of Peace website.

I will publish a map (flow chart) which will present a summery of the report as I read through it here.

The Iraqi Study Group Report is important to read for two main reasons: it provides a basic background of the current Iraqi situation in a comprehensive and simple language, while presenting the American take on it. Sort of a "dummies guide to Iraqi mess," if you wish.

Update: Abu Aardvark has interesting things to say about the ISG report on his blog.

Update: I have completed the flow chart. It summarizes the first part of the Report, which has three major parts altogether. The first part is the most crucial one, I believe, because it explains the American problem in Iraq.

Update (12/9/06): A bit late, but it's important to mention that the ISG findings are not very popular within the Middle East.

Iraqi Reaction

According to The Guardian, a "senior security adviser to the prime minister" rejects the proposal of joining the reported-to-be corrupt police force under the so-called less corrupt Iraqi Defence ministry, which commands the Iraqi army. " 'Like too many of the Baker report's recommendations, it is likely to cause more problems than it solves," said the security official, who probably belongs to the interior minstry (Al Jazeera does not say he does). The Interior Ministry is in charge of the Iraqi Police. "The interior ministry needs cleaning of some bad elements, and we are doing so. Transferring the national police lock, stock and barrel to the defence ministry is unworkable and unrealistic."

Note that the Defense Ministry is led by Hajim al-Hassani, a Sunni. The Ministry of the Interior is led by Shiites. The above objection could be based (and probably is) on sectarian differences.

- -

The leader of the northern Kurdish region in Iraq has rebuked the Iraq Study Group's report. Al Jazeera reports the Kurds in the north oppose the ISG findings. "Massoud Barzani, the president of the northern Iraqi Kurdistan region, accused the commission on Friday of trying to impose the 'wrong solutions' on the Iraqi people," the article says.

Arguments about the control over natural resources (more politically correct than saying 'oil', but the same thing) of Iraq between the Kurds and the government have been on the rise lately. The Kurds oppose to the government's control over natural sources, and argue in favor of privatization: "Barzani was sharply critical of the report's recommendation that the Iraqi central government should have control over the natural resources of the country and said that the mechanism of natural wealth distribution in the constitution was sufficient."

Most of the oil in Iraq is concentrated in the south, an area under Shiite control. The northern part of the country comes close-second, with most of the oil refineries.
The motivations here should be obvious: Giving control on the oil to Iraq's current Shia-biased government is bad news to the Kurds, who prefer to do business with oil companies themselves.

The images blow show an approximate devision of Iraq by the sub-groups (left) and oil distribution (right).

Credits go to NPR, for the sub-groups map and ReliefWeb, for the oil distribution map.

Israeli Reaction

In an interview with Ynet, former Israeli U.N. Ambassador Dore Gold expresses concern over "the very willingness of the reports' author to start a dialogue both Iran and with Syria... because the United States isn't requiring any preliminary conditions for this dialogue, and there is no mention of the Iranian nuclear program which continues to advance."

Gold said Syria will only continue to destabilize the area if given the chance, and that Israel "has been unsuccessful in conveying a clear message to the US elite regarding the Iranian threat."

Israel watches the Iranian nuclear program worryingly. Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Olmart, has tried to urge the U.S. into pressuring Iran in a recent meeting with President Bush.

An Israeli army official, Major General Uzi Dayan expressed his opinion of the report: "what should worry Israel is the lack of leadership and vision," referring to the strategies offered in the report.

More Reactions

The BBC Media Reports said "most Middle East newspapers view the Baker-Hamilton [or the ISG report] report as an admission of US failure in Iraq. Many are sceptical it will lead to positive change."

it follows with about 20 headlines from newspapers in the Middle East condemning the ISG findings.

A Short Break..

2006-12-06T16:24:00.000-05:00

Please enjoy this picture while I attend to other important matters. I will post again as soon as possible.

Hezbollha's Battle for Lebanon (Act II)

2006-12-01T12:29:00.001-05:00

The protest in Lebanon:

This image, from BBC news, shows what Al Jazeera claims to be about 800,000 demonstrators who gathered in front of the governmental building in Beirut. The massive protest took place after Hezbollah's chief Hasan Nasrallah called "all Lebanese, from every region and political movement, to take part in a peaceful and civilized demonstration on Friday to rid us of an incapable government that has failed in its mission."

In response, Lebanon's Prime Minister Mr. Siniora "has vowed to resist what he called an attempted coup." His strong words against the "peaceful and civilized demonstration" came as a result of the recent events in Lebanon.

The political situation in Lebanon has worsened since Hezbollah's five ministers resigned from the Lebanese cabinet [the MajlisAlnuwab] 2 weeks ago, claiming the government has stopped following the people will. The five ministers were Shia Muslim, who also represent one of the three majors sections of the the Lebanese population, all required to be represented equally by the government. Hezbollah and other opposition forces now claim the cabinet misrepresent the Lebanese population, after losing five Shia ministers.

Another major factor is Pierre Gemaye's [a Maronite anti-Syrian politician, who served in the Minster of Industry] assassination last week. Lebanon's Maronites took to the streets in large anti-Syrian protests, believing Syria is behind the assassination.

The massive rally shook the already deteriorating country, with its different sects marching toward another civil war.

It should also be noted that even though Hezbollah's well-organized rally was not violent, Hezbollah itself is a well trained militant organization which controlled South Lebanon for seven years since Israel's withdrawal. The organization's popularity increased among Shiites and Arabs ever since the July war with Israel. With Hezbollah's popularity on the rise on one hand and Lebanon's government power decreasing from the other, Siniora indeed has a reason to fear of a coup.

Update: Another Image, from the L.A. Times, showing Lebanese soldiers watching the protest.

Update (12/2/06): In Beirut, hundreds of demonstrators spent the night in the streets next the government's building, marking a the second day of the protest. The demonstrators "will stay [in the streets] until the fall of the government which is under the tutelage of the United States.* "

Mustapha posts a letter from one of the Shiite demonstrators in Beirut, in a reply to his previous post. "I cannot accept that you remove our democratically elected Prime Minister the way you're trying to." His blog now presents a film about a Hezbollah supporter removing a Lebanese flag and hanging a Hezbollah one instead.

Little Green Footballs calls the two day demonstration "terrorist tent city," and offer links to other blogs with a similar agenda.

Opposing View Points: LGF and Sabbah's

2006-11-28T20:03:00.000-05:00

Little Green Footballs [LGF] and Sabbah's blog both represent two different view of the conflicts in the Middle East.

Both blogs discuss an incident that happened last week in Arizona, regarding 6 Muslim men that were forced out of an airplane. A passenger "raised concerns about the imams - three of whom said their normal evening prayers in the airport terminal before boarding the Phoenix-bound plane, according to one - through a note passed to a flight attendant, according to Andrea Rader, a spokeswoman for US Airways," says the AP article posted in LGF.

The bloggers used the same story for their different agendas. Sabbah used the story as a part of a post, condemning racial restriction on transportation:

"who said that traveling around is fun? Think again! So, you told me that you a living in the land of honey, freedom and democracy? Well, I don’t envy you if this is what your country endorse: Starting with the light story; six Muslim academics (Imams) were taken off a plane in the US and evidently placed on the no fly list. Why? A passenger raised concerns about the imams - three of whom said their normal evening prayers in the airport terminal before boarding the Phoenix-bound plane!"

LGF, which broke the story as soon as it happened, updated the post a couple of times:

"The incident we reported last night, in which 6 Muslim men were removed from a plane at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport, seems to have been a false alarm—and the Council on American Islamic Relations is right there, seething and complaining of prejudice: 6 Muslim Imams Removed From Plane, Group Was Saying Evening Prayers Prior To Boarding Plane In Minneapolis."

Like Sabbah's, LGF also included cynical comments, such as "why in the world would Americans be suspicious of Muslims loudly, publicly praying on airplanes? Go figure." That is probably the only common factor of the two blogs, as both bloggers are bias and have of opposing view points: LGF leans toward the right pro-Israel side, while Shabbah is an obvious anti-Israeli pro-Palestinian blog.

In Sabbah's blog, Haitham tends to get very emotional and angry. He convinces his readers of his arguments by "bombing" them with bursts of facts, like he did in this post. His posts usually tend to be short, emotionally powerful and simple. LGF's Charles Johnson is usually more committed (he would post a couple of times a day), and tends to let quoted articles on his blog to deliver the message for him. He will usually have a short introduction, and then a witty remark at the end, like he did over here.

There is also a significant different between the blogs when it comes to gathering sources and facts. Johnson seems to do a far better job at pointing his readers not only to the news sources used for a specific post, but also to other blogs and websites which develop the theme further with their own resources. Sabbah seems to relay more on what his readers give him, and a group of his favorite blogs. He doesn't use as nearly as much sources for the above mentioned story. I made a map which shows the sources LGF and Sabbah used for the six Imams story. It really highlights the difference visually.

Al Jazeera English Goes Live

2006-11-16T02:09:00.001-05:00

Al Jazeera, the "Arabic CNN," has launched it's English version today around the world.

From the (new) Al Jazeera website:

Al Jazeera English, the new international news channel from the Qatar-based television network, has begun broadcasting from its main studios in Doha.

The opening broadcast, which was expected to be available in 80 million households around the world, took place at 3pm Doha time (12:00 GMT) and featured a clip introducing the channel.

But perhaps the most obvious destination for the new English news channel will stay out of reach. The news station that is said to revolutionized Arabic media is seemingly banned from U.S. satellite and cable companies.

"American viewers mostly know it as an Arab-language news channel that shows Osama bin Laden videos and grisly images of dead American soldiers and mutilated Iraqi children," says
the New York Times. It explains America sees Al Jazeera as a terrorist-sympathizing media outlet, and thus has no room in the American living room.

The Washington Post says it even better in an editorial:

Many across the world, especially in America, think Al Jazeera inexcusably promoted Osama bin Laden for mutual benefit. Al Jazeera achieved substantial publicity by airing the terrorist's videos before anyone else could see them. Bin Laden, many scholars argue, would not have been a global celebrity without the TV platform Al Jazeera offered. By airing his clips, the Wall Street Journal argues* Al Jazeera became a "mouthpiece of Osama bin Laden," offering free publicity that helped him recruit more fighters. When I asked Director General Wadah Khanfar if Al Jazeera English would show more bin Laden tapes should they be released, he replied forcefully, "Yes, we will abide by the same editorial guidelines as our Arabic channel.

Though Al Jazeera launched today, it will be tough to find in the United States. Cable companies here worry that in the minds of Americans Al Jazeera is too closely associated with Al Qaeda for comfort. The station's presentation -- some would say selective presentation -- of atrocities in the Middle East, especially in Iraq, Palestine and most recently Lebanon, have inflamed anti-American sentiment.

On multiple occasions, officials within the Bush administration accused the station of willfully stirring hatred toward America. As Al Jazeera's introductory video boasts, Donald Rumsfeld called their broadcasts "vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable". Rumors circulate that America even considered it an outright military target after it bombed its offices in Kabul."

The editorial ends by asking the readers for their opinion.

Interested American viewers can still watch Al Jazeera in English however, by subscribing to its internet feed, for $.5.95 a month.

Clips: Below is a clip from the media channel which offers a strong opinion about the American censorship. Under it, a clip from the very first Al Jazeera English broadcast, also embedded in the Washington Post article above.

* The Wall Street Journal's Amir Taheri wrote an opinion column criticizing Al Jazeera. More about that will come soon.

Beit Hanun: Aftermath

2006-11-15T15:40:00.002-05:00

Two Hamas politicians were caught trying to smuggle money into Gaza. The Gulf News reports only one person, Mushir Al Masri, was involved, taking about 2 million U.S. dollars with him in a suitcase, while the Jerusalem Post reports the amount to be more than 4 million, carried by Masri and Ahmed Bahr, another Hamas lawmaker.

The Post suggests both officials tried to smuggle the money after "the Arab League voted to lift the boycott and resume transferring funds to the Palestinians," after the Beit Hanun incident last week.

The Hamas government is facing an almost global embargo since March; it was reported the government has not paid its employees for months. This incident marks, perhaps, the beginning of Sunni Arab support for the Hamas government from Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Beit Hanun

It is still uncertain how many Palestinians were killed in the Beit Hanun incident, now under ongoing Israeli investigation. the Jerusalem Post article mentioned above claims 19 were killed, while another article, also in the Post, claims the total to be 21.

Two Israeli artillery shells (or one according to some sources) landed in the Palestinian town of Beit Hanun, killing 13 members of a single family, and (at least) 5 more. The toll rose to 19 throughout the week, suggesting that at least one victimdied later, probably in a hospital.

The IDF claims it shot a total of 12 artillery shells at a designated Qassam-rocket launch sites, about 500 meters away (about 1600 feet, one third of a mile) from the town. The shell(s) that deviated from the target hit an apartment building, apparently the house of a single Palestinian family and its relatives. The Israel army's chief, Dan Halutz, ordered a thorough investigation.

The artillery bombing came as an Israeli retaliation after yet another burst of Qassam rockets, shot from the area of Beit Hanun, only several hours after the completion of a six-day military operation in the area. The operation, code-named Autumn Clouds, was executed to prevent the Hamas militants from firing rockets.

It is reported that more than ten such rockets hit Shderot, an Israeli town close to Gaza and Beit Hanun, after the operation was concluded, provoking the Israeli artillery strike. It should be mentioned that neither the operation nor the shelling succeeded in preventing the rockets from hitting Shderrot, which is still under attack.

In Shderot, an Israeli woman was directly killed from a Qassam rocket, and another boy was wounded.

Update: An article in the Turkish Zaman claims the strike "which left 19 Palestinians including women and children dead" also "completely destroyed" a 766-year-old mosque in the town. The article indicates, by the number of the victims, that the mosque was hit by the artillery strike - however, the two shells that caused the disaster in Beit Hanun hit only the apartment building (see above). The article could maybe refer to the earlier "Autumn Clouds" operation, but that operation claimed more than 19 Palestinian lives.

Zaman blames (indirectly) Israel of war crimes by destroying the mosque, but is not reliable enough to affirm with other articles.

Update: Gershom Gorenberg of the Jewish Forward has a column about the usage of artillery in Gaza. He finds (according to military personal interviewed) why using such weapons is infective.

One of Beit Hanun's results, points Gorenberg, is the acceleration of the negations between the Fatah and the Hamas regarding a united government. "The accelerated talks indicate 'a siege mentality — in a siege we’ve got to be united,' said Bar-Ilan University’s Menachem Klein, an expert on Palestinian politics."

Mohammad Shubair is Haniyeh's and Mazen's choice as the next Prime Minister. Shubair is an "an American-educated microbiologist and former president of Islamic University in Gaza," as reported here and other articles.

Update: The Al-qassam brigades website reports the group shot two more rockets "to confirm the Occupations fail in Beit Hanon."

Abbas and Haniya: Two Visions, One State.

2006-11-07T20:34:00.000-05:00

I spent the last few hours reading and scrutinizing "Palestinian Leaders at Odds" in the Egyptian Al-Ahram. It is a thorough article which contains interviews with Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), the president of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), and the Palestinian Prime Minister, Ismail Haniyah.

On the surface, it seems Mazen is interested in a moderate solution to the Palestinian problem. His strategy is to deliver peace and prosperity through international recognition, what comes to be known in the article as "international illegitimacy." Mazen does not like the Hamas 'approach' to politics:

[reporter:]But do you not at all think, even for a moment, that it is useful to have Hamas in the government and that you should be using Hamas's firm stand to irritate the Israelis and the Americans?

[Mazen:]It is us who are being irritated. It is the Palestinians who have been living under siege for months.
Anyway, in politics you cannot count on irritating someone"

On the other Hand, Haniya seems to be interested (at least in theory, he seem to back up a bit when asked about this directly in the interview) in a united government, which will include both Hamas and Fatah (Mazen's party).

Haniya sticks close to the national accord document, which calls for a Palestinian state inside Israel (according to the 1967 borders), with Jerusalem as its capital. Obviously, Israel will not agree with Haniya's (and the document's) more radical solution. The fact that the national accord document is signed by active resistance members (the most renowned one being Marwan Barghouti, which was an active leader in the 2000 intafada in Israel, currently in an Israeli jail. Describing his role and the others' is too much for single post) enforces the notion of the more radical view of Hamas and Haniya, who reportedly does not recognize Israel's right to exist.

The reporter, who works for an Egyptian newspaper, gives western readers an interesting angle. This is just one example among many:

"[Reporter:] ...it seems clear that nobody wants to deal with you. This applies to the Palestinian Authority, major Arab capitals, Washington and the Israeli government. They may not mind your presence but do mind your intervention.

[Haniya:] This is partially true... It seems there is a [consistent effort] to keep Hamas away from the government... But Hamas was democratically elected. It did not rise to power through a military coup…"

Haniya then fights not only the west, with Israel and the U.S. leading the opposition against him and his government, but also other Arab nations such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The article reviles tensions between the different Arab forces, as they worry Haniya (again, according to what I gather from the article) will side with Hizbollah, Syria and Iran - the Shia powers in the Middle East today.

Here comes another interesting contrast of opinions - the Palestinian connection to the exterior Arab world: Mazen, who is closer to Israel and the U.S., is focuses on the Palestinians. In his own words, "I only talk for the case of Palestine." Haniya, on the other hand, who is alienated from Israel and the west, wants to stay more connected to the Arab world, addressing the Palestinian problem as a "part of the entire Arab and Muslim worlds." Again, the Sunni Arab world, from what one gathers from the article, is not on Haniya's side.

This would might be a good place to add that while Haniya is the Hamas leader in 'Palestine', Khaled Mashal is its leader in Syria, who is said to be even more redical than Haniya. In the chain of command, it seems, Marshal comes before Hanyia.

I will work on a better version of the organization map I built, but for now, you are welcome to view the current version.

U.S. Plans to Stay in Iraq Until 2010

2006-11-07T13:18:00.000-05:00

The Peninsula, a Qatar based newspaper, reports the U.S. is ready to stay in Iraq until 2010, quoting army chief of staff General Peter Schoomaker:

army chief of staff General Peter Schoomaker confirmed that contingency plans were being drawn up to have enough troops ready to maintain current force levels in Iraq until 2010.

Schoomaker said the army had scheduled troop rotations 'at exactly what we have today.'

The reports comes from the AFP, but also from "Reporters Without Borders," an interesting group who monitors freedom of press worldwide.

*Note: Hoshiyar Zebari, the Iraqi Prime Minister, asks the U.S. to say in this post discusses the Iraqi

Death Verdict to Saddam - Conflicting Reports

2006-11-05T12:43:00.001-05:00

Saddam will be hanged, report Both BBC and Asharq Alawsat, however the description of what took place in court during the verdict is very different in the two versions. Here are some examples.

BBC reports of that when Judge Rauf Abdel Rahman ordered Saddam to stand, "the former president refused to do so and had to be moved from his seat by court attendants." Asharaq Alawsat reports that Saddam refused to stand up, but then "Eventually he rose shakily to his feet in the dock to hear the verdict and sentence read out," apparently by himself.

Both sources agree that Saddam yelled "Allahu Akbar!" and "long live Iraq!" but the BBC also reported that enraged Saddam kept yelling and denouncing the court, and after getting off the stand, "Saddam Hussein seemed to have a small smile of triumph on his face as he was led away from the courtroom." Asharq Alawsat instead focuses on a direct quotation from the judge, then saying he was "ignoring a plea made by Saddam earlier in the trial that he should face a military firing squad, not the noose."

Asharq Alawsat's article leans toward favoring the judge, giving the Saddam verdict story a sweet 'good guys win' spin from the very first line ("A visibly shaken Saddam Hussein was found guilty of crimes against humanity"), while BBC focus more on Saddam himself and delivers a somewhat subliminal message: 'is that really it?'

A piece from the BBC boradcast from the court room is missing. An announcement, which plays on the still-running soundtrack (apparently when Saddam was forced up on his legs), explains the piece was removed in order to protect the court staff. Saddam was forced to stand up , at least according to this video. He also keeps yelling throughout the entire verdict. Nothing like that exists in the heroic story by Asharaq Alawsat.

BBC used their own reporters, while Asharaq Alawsat used Reuters services.

IDF Shoots Women on Masque Siege - The making of propaganda

2006-11-03T15:01:00.001-05:00

Most media outlets today call to attention the death of two women who were shot by IDF soldiers in the Gaza strip. The women walked toward a besieged masque in Beit Hanun, which was filled with armed gunmen, guarded by the IDF.

The "fine print":
The NY Times claims the women helped the gunmen escape:

The Israeli military said its fire was directed at Palestinian gunmen who were hiding among the women as they marched toward the Um al-Nasir mosque in Beit Hanun, the town in the northeastern Gaza Strip where Israeli troops and militants have been battling for the past three days.

And according to BBC:

Israeli military spokeswoman Avital Leibovich said: "Unfortunately, maybe one woman was killed - I don't know if it's by IDF or not. But our purpose is definitely not to hit the innocent ones."

"We saw crowds of women. Behind the women hid some of the militants. Some of them were even dressed up as women: we have footage," she said.
"Unfortunately because the militants shot at our forces, sometimes we had to respond."

At least two men disguised in women's clothes were seen being embraced by jubilant bystanders as the women rushed away from the mosque, the Associated Press reported.

Update:

* CNN and BBC are said to have broadcasted a video of the shooting. The BBC video is on You Tube.

* The image blow was taken by Reuters' Suhaib Salem. It will probably be used again as part of the Hamas propaganda in the region.

Update:
From BBC news:
Friday's action around the Beit Hanoun mosque followed a tense stand-off between Israeli forces and up to 15 militants who had taken refuge inside.

Hamas radio then appealed to local women in the town to intervene.

One of the women, Nahed Abou Harbiya, told the BBC Arabic Service the gunmen inside the mosque were given women's clothes to help them escape

Update:
Nahed Abou Harbiya describes more of what happened:" 'We entered the mosque and indeed we got all the resistance men out and put female attire on them so that the Israeli occupation forces wouldn't arrest them,' she said."

Israel Flies Over Lebanon, Provoking U.N.

2006-10-31T22:07:00.000-05:00

Israeli planes flew at low alttitude over Beirut, causing sonic booms above the Shii-populated area in the south, a few hours before Nasrallah gave a 3-hours long speech to the press. The Daily Star reported that the French responded engerly, saying they will even shoot at the planes:

France, which currently leads the UN peacekeeping force in South Lebanon, has said it might open fire on intruding aircraft.

The Lebanese army shot AA fire at the planes as well:

The army said their gunners fired "anti-aircraft weapons at the Israeli planes in the South."

Israel did not comment on these aligations. Amir Peretz, Israel's Defence Minister, said the fly-overs will continue as long as Hizbollah is smuggling weapons.

Iraqi Government Wants the U.S. to Stay Longer

2006-10-30T18:46:00.001-05:00

Iraq's Foreign Minister, Hoshiyar Zebari, is planning on asking the U.S. to extend its military envolvment in Iraq, after more than 100 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq during the month of October alone.

According to the article, both U.S. and Iraq blame Syria and Iran for supporting the Sunni Saddam-supporting militia groups in the country.

Iraqi Prime Minister claims that more weapons and training will enable Iraq to take care of its own security:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told Reuters last week that Iraq could take over its own security in about six months if its police and soldiers had more training, better weapons and a greater say over their own movements and operations.

President Bush said he would help:

President George W. Bush, who faces growing public dismay over his Iraq policy ahead of congressional elections next week, announced agreement on Saturday to speed up the training of Iraqi forces.

Hamas Leader to Negotiate Release of Shalit.

2006-10-30T00:59:00.000-05:00

Al Sharek Al Aswat: Khaled Meshaal (see Palestinian map) will go to Cairo to for talks of negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis regarding Shalit's (map) in exchange for Palestinian prisoners.

U.S. Army loses thousands and thousands of weapons in Iraq

2006-10-30T00:20:00.000-05:00

The army lost track of hundred-thousands weapons meant to reinforce the Iraqi security forces, reports the New York Times. The article is based on a report that was completed this Sunday.

In its assessment of Iraqi weaponry, the inspector general concluded that of the 505,093 weapons that have been given to the Ministries of Interior and Defense over the last several years, serial numbers for only 12,128 were properly recorded. The weapons include rocket-propelled grenade launchers, assault rifles, machine guns, shotguns, semiautomatic pistols and sniper rifles.
Of those weapons, 370,000 were purchased with American taxpayer money under what is called the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund, or I.R.R.F., and therefore fell within the inspector general’s mandate.

The article claims that black-market traders are common in Iraq, and illegal trading of weapons is very acceptable in Iraq right now. About 10,000 weapons that suppose to be in warehouses are simple gone without a trace.

There were also significant discrepancies in the numbers of weapons purchased and those in Iraqi warehouses. While 176,866 semiautomatic pistols were purchased with American money, just 163,386 showed up in warehouses — meaning that more than 13,000 were unaccounted for. All 751 of the M1-F assault rifles sent to Iraq were missing, and nearly 100 MP-5 machine guns.