Category Archives: Middle East

U.S. and Israel oppose UNESCO “world heritage status” for Church of Nativity

June 29, 2012 – 8:14 pm

The US and Israel have condemned UNESCO for declaring the Church of the Nativity a world heritage site.  They complain that the Palestinians use of “imminent threat” to the church was nothing more than a political move.  When asked about the UNESCO decision Prime Minister Netanyahu said the Palestinians are  “engaging in unilateral actions that only distance peace.”  US ambassador to UNESCO, David Killion, also expressed regret saying that he was “profoundly disappointed” by the vote.  Both Israel and the United States claim that the Palestinians use of “imminent threat” is unfounded and misleading.  Bethlehem is under the control of the PA and thus is not in any danger from Israel, as the Palestinians are claiming.  But, and this is a very big but, the city of Bethlehem is surrounded on three sides by the Israeli separation wall.  Ostensibly the separation wall was built to keep Palestinian militants out of Israel.  In reality the separation wall is part of Israeli’s attempt to grab and annex as much Palestinian land as possible.  For Palestinians living in Bethlehem every year they see more and more of their land disappear. Israel’s insistence of settlement building has also not stopped.  And while there are no new settlements being built in Bethlehem right now, the same basic principle remains, and that is the persistent and illegal annexation of Palestinian land.  The Church of the Nativity may not be in immediate danger right now but the very fabric of the Palestinian people is.  Netanyahu’s claim that this is a political move is right though.  Of course this is a political move.  Politicians be they Palestinian or Israeli make political moves.  It is no more a political move though then Israel’s brainwashing of Evangelical conservatives to support Israel is a political move.  The idea alone that this is a detriment to peace is enough to make your stomach turn.  If the South African’s had tried to designate an ancient site during apartheid would we have told them not to because it might effect gaining their freedom from whit minority rule?  Palestinians are playing the hand they were dealt.  They are not content to sit passively sit at home and watch their land and people disappear.  After decades of occupation they are tired of waiting for Israel and the United States to act.

By porkinspolicyreview | Also posted in Israel/Palestine, U.S. policy, United Nations | Comments (0)

Yemen’s army is not fighting Al Qaeda

June 29, 2012 – 1:18 pm

Yemen’s army has claimed to be fighting of an onslaught of Al Qaeda militants in its southern region. Fighting in and around Aden has been raging for months following Ali Abdullah Saleh’s transfer of power. Yemen has falsely been using this narrative to suppress secessionist protesters in the south of the country.
Until 1990 Yemen was divided into two separate nations, with the south being ruled as a quasi-Marxist state. Ever since the consolidation of the two entities those in the south have long complained of being neglected by the central government in Sana. Saleh showered his tribe, predominately locates in the north, with money and services. Those in the south suffered from underdevelopment and massive poverty and unemployment. Many in the south have in fact complained about the influence that Al Qaeda and Ansar al Sharia have had in the region. Yet this is the direct result of Saleh’s policy of divide and conquer. Saleh allowed for militants and Al Qaeda to flourish in the south to pressure the United States to provide him with aid to fight “terrorism.” Letting the militants run wild also insured that those shouting for secession would be divided and more concerned with protecting themselves rather than gaining independence. In reality it was mainly local tribes that have been responsible for pushing Al Qaeda elements out or their southern strongholds. Yemen’s military on the other hand has been going after the persistent protesters calling for freedom from Sana. The military has implemented a “shoot on sight” policy in the south, with the neighborhood of Mansoura receiving the brunt of this repression. Fighting has become so bad that most of its residents have left the area entirely.
Compounding this stupidity is the United States acquiescence to Yemen’s military operations. Those fighting for freedom in the south are not fundamentalist militants. They are by and large nationalists whose allegiances are to their tribes not Al Qaeda. This could make them stable and reliable allies of the US in their fight against Islamic militants. America’s support for the militaries operations in the south are instead further stoking a growing anti-American sentiment.
If this policy continues the secessionist tribes could align themselves with some of the local Islamic militant factions. This was the strategy used by the secular Tuareg separatist group the MNLA in Mali, which led to the entire north of the country coming under control of Tuareg fighters. Now in Mali the MNLA and Islamic militants, some of whom have ties to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, have begun fighting amongst themselves for power and dominance. Northern Mali now has been made into a safe heaven for Islamic militants. Yemen is close to succumbing to a similar scenario. The end result of this would be incredibly destabilizing to Yemen and the region at large. The threat to the American homeland will only increase under the current trajectory. Worse still, it would lead to countless deaths of the poorest or the poor in Yemen.

By porkinspolicyreview | Also posted in Interal conflicts, Terrorism | Comments (0)

Defense Intelligence Agency releases video made in aftermath of Pollard incident

June 29, 2012 – 11:03 am

The above video was produced by the security apparatus of the Defenses Intelligence Agency (DIA) as a training video on the dangers of espionage. The short video was made after Jonathan Pollard was convicted of spying for Israel in 1987. Pollard stole and transferred one million classified intelligence documents to the Israeli government. Grant Smith of the Institute of Research: Middle East Policy obtained the video under a Freed of Information Act (FOIA) request. The video is hokey and very 80’s, but it shows just how serious DIA took this incident. Smith believes that President Obama may be close to pardoning Pollard from prison. A pardon for Pollard would show just how willing the US is to please Israel, and represent how Israel is totally above the law when it comes to spying on their closet ally.

By porkinspolicyreview | Also posted in International Relations, Israel lobby, U.S. politics | Comments (0)

Annan backs off letting Iran negotiate in Syria

June 28, 2012 – 4:29 am

Kofi Annan has been pushing for some time now to have Iran help negotiate an end to the civil war in Syria.  As one of Syria’s few remaining allies Iran could play a very important part in helping to end the violence.  Unfortunately this will not happen.  On Wednesday Annan announced that Iran will not participate in the peace talks scheduled for Saturday in Geneva.  The current roster for the peace talks include the United States, Britain, China, France, Russia and Turkey.  It’s patently clear that the United States did not want Iran to have a seat at the table.  Letting them participate might have gone towards acknowledging that Iran has power and influence, which runs counter to the narrative concocted by the United States.  The US believes that maintaining the perception that Iran is weak and isolated will help them in succeeding to stop their nuclear program.  Of course this is unfounded and arrogant, but plays well for the domestic audience here that views Iran as a threat.  Congressional push back on Iran as a negotiator was also very loud.  Those in Congress preaching about ending the crisis seem to care more about sticking it to Iran than actually bringing about an end to the violence.

Whatever happens in Syria will have an impact on Iran.  As both a friend and neighbor to Assad, Iran will be a factor in whatever happens.  By cutting them out of the discussion Annan has insured that the role Iran plays will be more adversarial towards the West and those pushing for regime change than if they were involved in peace talks.  This represents yet another example of how the civil war in Syria is being fought over by world powers in a very complicated game of geopolitical chess.

By porkinspolicyreview | Also posted in International Relations, U.S. policy | Comments (0)

AFP on controversial Israeli military training program

June 26, 2012 – 11:09 am

AFP has a terrific underreported story on an Israeli military training exercise that targets innocent Palestinians. Unsurprisingly this has not made it to the front pages of newspapers here in America.

As the Shawakha brothers rushed to protect their home from intruders, they had no clue they were unwitting participants in an Israeli army exercise that would leave one of them dead.

“It was March 27, 1:30 in the morning,” recalls Akram Shawakha, 36, who was on watch duty on the top floor of the modest family home on a hill east of the West Bank city of Ramallah.

Their house is on the outskirts of the wealthy village of Rammun, where most residents have emigrated to America.

“I saw two men dressed in ordinary clothes near the entrance,” said Akram, a cement factory worker who was taking the first shift on guard duty to keep an eye on the family’s 10 sheep and their car from would-be thieves.

Clutching a stick, Akram went down to wake his brothers — 39-year-old Anwar and 28-year-old Rashad — then went outside as they got dressed and picked up a knife to protect themselves.

Akram confronted the two strangers, addressing them in Arabic “which they spoke perfectly,” he recalls.

“I asked them who they were.

“One of them said: ‘Don’t worry, we know everyone in Rammun.’ We insisted on seeing their identity papers, and they put their hands in their pockets and pulled out their guns, not to threaten us, but with the intention of shooting.”

Gunfire erupted and a confused melee ensued. The three brothers suffered bullet wounds although they managed to throw blows of their own as they fought.

“Everything happened in less than a minute,” Akram says.

“Then Israeli soldiers in uniform arrived and we were ordered to stop. My brothers were lying on the ground, injured. I asked the soldiers for help.”

The two “intruders” were quickly whisked away in a military vehicle as the three brothers waited, lying on the ground. At one point, “a soldier fired a round at the ground, injuring Rashad further,” Akram says.

Eventually the three brothers were taken to an Israeli hospital.

Rashad died on April 2.

The story was picked up by the Israeli media, which soon discovered that the two “intruders” were in fact soldiers participating in a training exercise by the “Dudevan” military unit, which specialises in infiltrating Palestinian areas disguised as Arabs.

Shortly after the two surviving brothers were released from hospital, they filed a complaint through the Israeli rights group B’Tselem.

On April 24, nearly a month after the incident, the military prosecutor informed B’Tselem that it had opened an investigation.

The military has repeatedly refused to comment on the investigation, saying only that it is ongoing.

“It wasn’t until I was at the hospital that I understood the people we confronted were soldiers,” Anwar Shawakha told AFP, saying he had only realised what had happened when an army officer called “Adam” told him during his interrogation.

“Their lives were never in danger. We just wanted to know their identity, but their identity was their guns,” he says.

“We thought they were thieves. At no point did they mention Israel, nor the army, nor did they order us to go back into the house, otherwise none of this would have happened,” he sighs.

“Rammun is a quiet village.”

Using Palestinian villages as a training ground for undercover Israeli troops is not uncommon. In 2007, the practice prompted Israeli NGO Yesh Din to complain to the military’s top legal adviser, warning the exercises could endanger both Israeli and Palestinian lives.

Yehuda Shaul, founder of Breaking the Silence, a group of former Israeli soldiers critical of army practices in the occupied territories, says such exercises have increased in recent years.

“As the West Bank becomes more and more secure, security-wise, there is more and more training on ‘live’ Palestinians,” he told AFP.

Back during the violence of the second intifada (2000-2005), the security situation was too dangerous for troops to carry out such undercover work, but since then, the army has been taking advantage of the calm for training purposes.

“Now training on Palestinians is not putting the troops in danger, so as the West Bank becomes more and more calm, we hear more and more of these stories,” he said.

A newly trained unit doesn’t want “their first arrest operation to be carried out on a real sting, on a really wanted person,” he explains.

“So you pick a quiet village in the area where you’re based, you open the map, choose a random house … You go in the middle of the night, you surround the house, you grab a guy as if it’s a real arrest.”

The argument is that training “has to be as close to the real thing” as possible, he said.

“It is another form of what we call in the army ‘Making our presence felt’ — if Palestinians get the feeling that the army is everywhere all the time, they will be afraid to attack,” Shaul told AFP.

“When you control people under military occupation for so long, you’re starting to play games. Individual soldiers play games at checkpoints with people, and the big army plays games with villages.”

By porkinspolicyreview | Also posted in Israel/Palestine | Comments (0)

Some facts you should know before you enter the spin war

June 26, 2012 – 10:51 am

Mohammad Morsi has officially won the first democratic election in Egypt. But the most significant event in Egypt’s history since Nasser overthrew King Farouk has been sidelined by many in the West. The principle players in the spin war are many of the neoconservatives that brought us the Iraq war. Fox News unsurprisingly has come to the forefront of the spin war to paint the Muslim Brotherhood ascent to power as the most dangerous world event. This morning they had Egypt expert Donald Trump on “Fox and Friends” railing against President Obama’s policy towards Egypt. Trump proclaimed that the administration should have supported Mubarak because he was our “friend” as well as a “friend” to Israel. Later in the day Fox had the lamentable warmonger John Bolton on the air spewing a litany of lies about the ramifications of Morsi as president. So before you get sucked into the spin war it is important to know several key facts about the reality of the situation.

The SCAF is still in totally in control the nation. Many alarmist politicians and pundits have begun proclaiming that Morsi will bring about a radical Islamist agenda to his presidency. This notion is one hundred percent wrong. Morsi has no real power. The SCAF’s June 17 constitution consolidated all power into the hands of the military. Foreign policy and control of the military are solely controlled by Tantawi and his cronies. The June 17 constitution also granted veto power to the military; ostensibly making Morsi little more than a figure head. Dissolving parliament has also ensured that the SCAF will control all aspects of governing in Egypt.

Pro-Israel fanatics have also been raising alarm bells over Morsi’s presidential win. They claim that the Brotherhood government get rid of the long standing peace deal between the two nations. This they fear will usher in a new wave of violence that will threaten “poor defenseless” Israel. There is no way that Morsi will throw out the peace deal between Egypt and Israel. He has nothing to gain from this. While many neo-cons think that the Brotherhood has some diabolical plan to destroy Israel this notion is also incredibly far fetched. Egypt faces many problems in the coming years the least of which has to do with the Jewish state. Unemployment, poverty, and a weak economy are going to be at the forefront of issues that the incoming government must tackle. Why would they decide to take on the most powerful nation in the region? Israel would easily crush any sort of military incursion by Egypt with or with out the aid of America and Europe. Those expressing these irrational and unfounded fears of a hostile Egypt fail to understand the real reasons for such hostility in the first place. It was Mubarak himself who stoked such anger towards the Israelis, not the Brotherhood. Mubarak’s close personal relationship with a nation that brutalized fellow Arabs ais what gave rise to anti-Israeli sentiment. Lastly, Morsi was very clear in his acceptance speech that he would continue all of Egypt’s

By porkinspolicyreview | Also posted in U.S. policy | Comments (0)

Syria’s breaking point

June 24, 2012 – 3:51 pm

The latest escalation of tensions between Syria and Turkey threaten to bring the conflict to a horrifying new level. Details are still murky as to why Syrian shot down a Turkish F4 Phantom. Syria did not dispute that they had shot down the plane; perhaps an overreaction but still a legitimate response to their breach of sovereignty. On Saturday Turkey did admit that they had entered Syrian airspace, yet back tracked somewhat on Sunday, saying that the plane was in fact shot down in international waters. It is safe to bet that Syria does not want a military confrontation with their neighbor. Turkey’s armed forces far out number Syria’s. And military confrontation would be disastrous for both nations. This is also the second reported attack onTurkish military personal. Syria also fired at Turkish troops guarding a refugee camp just over the border.

No doubt calls for some form of intervention will become louder in the following days. Turkey is said to be invoking article IV of the NATO charter which calls for high level meetings with all NATO members; military options have not been taken of the table.

An event like this could end up being the straw that broke the camels back. As many will remember it was the shooting down of Habyarimana’s plane that sparked the genocide in Rwanda. While this incident is much different the same basic principle remains.

The downed Turkish fighter jet could prove to be the catalyst for an intervention. All the rhetoric from the West (Saudi Arabia an Qatar included) about not wanting to cause more bloodshed is nothing compared to their the drive to oust Assad from power. Getting rid of Assad is viewed by the Americans and the Gulf states as key to weakening Iran. Turkey in turn wants to ascend to the mantle of regional power in the Middle East. Both sides have been itching for justification to get involved. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have gone do far as to say NATO and the Arab League could circumvent the UN by declaring war themselves.

The real net losers will undoubtedly be the Syrian people. Their goals of being free from repression and violence will go the way side in the face of the geopolitical goals. The Saudis care nothing for the plight of the average Syrian. They care only about maintaing hegemony through out the Sunni Arab world. Human rights and free speech will mean nothing when civil and regional war break out. And will mean even less to the theocratic dictators in the Gulf. Those advocating for intervention in the West should be weary that the loudest voices advancing this are some of the most repressive countries in the world. An endless cycle of violence will ignite through out the Middle East that will never end and will never be resolved. In the end the only winners will be the Saudis and Qatari’s.

By porkinspolicyreview | Comments (0)

The U.S. needs to stop with the moral superiority over Russia

June 22, 2012 – 3:07 pm

In the last few months the civil war in Syria has become a diplomatic battle between Russia and the United States. This fight has focused around Russia’s arms sales to the Assad regime. Listening to American officials and the western media, a narrative has unfolded that pits the poor Syrian rebels against the evil Assad government; battling with little more than assault rifles and RPG’s against the superior military might of Russian made arms. Yet this narrative is both false and highly hypocritical.

There is no doubt that Russia is selling arms to the Assad regime. Both nations have had a long term deal with regards to arms trading stemming all the way back to the 1950’s. In the 1990’s Hafez al Assad relied heavily on Russian arms sales to suppress the Islamist uprising with in Syria. The problem with this narrative is that it is only one half of the story, and serves as a justification for neo-cons and liberal interventionists to push us into war with yet another Muslim nation.

Let us first examine a few facts that the West seems to forget when talking about the crisis in Syria. The U.S. is the single biggest arms dealer in the world, period. At a June 14th news conference Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro boasted that, “Despite the global economic strain, demand for U.S. defence products and services is stronger than ever.” Shapiro confirmed that in this fiscal year alone government to government arms sales have exceeded 50 billion dollars. It is worth noting that between 1950-1990, Russian arms sales to Syria totaled just 34 billion dollars. It is important to note that the top ten buyers of U.S. weapons in this fiscal year, which won’t end until September, are all gross human rights abusers. These ten reputable American allies include Honduras, the U.A.E, Algeria, Peru, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Israel, Qatar, and Djibouti. All of these nations are guilty in one form or another of suppressing civil society, freedom of speech and assembly; use of violence against religious and ethnic minorities; forced disappearance and extra judicial killings; threat of rape; and in the case is Israel, the 45 year occupation and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people. And don’t forget that peace loving America has not stopped the 1 billion dollar military aid program to Egypt. A billion dollar program to a military junta that has dissolved parliament, usurped power from the presidency, and is most likely working towards ensuring that Mubarak’s crony Shafik will be president. And yet, Russia is the evil actor in this perverse geopolitical drama.

The second part of this hypocritical morality lesson is the underreported and ignored fact that the United States is funneling weapons into Syria. Just the other day the NYT reported that the CIA was operating in Turkey; vetting various rebel groups to determine
who should receive arms. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are also guilty of sending arms into Syria. These two Gulf nations are simply a front for U.S. arms trafficking into Syria. This allows the U.S. plausible deniability that they are in providing weapons to rebel groups that may in fact be hostile to America. How is this any different from what Russia is doing?

This post is not meant to be an endorsement of Russian arms sales to Syria. Assad is no doubt an evil man guilty of killing his own people. Russia is certainty guilty of helping to slaughter Syrian people. But, this does not mean that America is good. America is culpable of suppressing human rights and slaughtering people around the world. America instead views helping their allies as somehow different.

Russia did not start arming Shia protesters in Bahrain while the U.S. backed government tortured and killed hundreds if not thousands. Bahrain is in America’s sphere of influence and was seen as out of bounds. In general Russia never calls out America for empowering their corrupt allies. Russia fully understands that in the game of geopolitics no power is good or bad. World powers do whatever they believe is in the national interest of their nation. Syria represents Russia’s last sphere of influence in the Middle East. If arming the Assad regime is deemed necessary to Russia’s national interest then they will arm them. Conversely, American elites believe that regime change in Syria and weakening Iran is in their interest. President Obama and Secretary Clinton care as much about the Syrian people as President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavarov do. Not at all.

By porkinspolicyreview | Also posted in International Relations | Comments (0)

What does Israel have to hide from the UNHRC?

April 2, 2012 – 12:47 pm

Last night I read Danny Ayalon’s recent article on how Israel is not going to put up with the UN Human rights Council. Mr. Ayalon lays out how the UNHRC has a vendetta out for the Jewish state; consistently singling them out for investigation and scrutiny. He makes the very valid point that just 20 of the 47 nations on the council are considered free by Freedom House. Ayalon points out that the UNHRC is not investigating human rights abuses in Syria, Saudi Arabia or Cuba; the latter two currently sit on UNHRC. Ayalon then states that the Palestinians, and their non-democratic supporters, are using the UNHRC to diplomatically attack the Jewish state.
This predictable response from Israel enforces the fact that Israel is in fact a serial human rights abuser. What does Israel have to fear if there are no human rights violations? If in fact the UNHRC is biased and picking on Israel then let them come and see that there is nothing going on. The reason this will never happen is because Israel knows they are breaking international law. If Israel is a defender of minorities and religious groups, as Ayalon claims, they should have nothing to fear from the investigation.
The weakest claim made by Ayalon is this old notion that there are worse offenders out there. Yes, there are certainly many states in the world that are guilty of horrific human rights abuses, but that does not excuse what Israel does. If Israel truly is the only democratic state in the region they should be adamant about protecting human rights, rather then cower in the face of criticism. For one last example of how idiotic Ayalon’s critique is, look no further than Israel’s increasingly warm relationship with the repressive kleptocracy of Azerbaijan. Any doubt that Israel was not a gross violator of human rights disappeared when hey sold the government of Azerbaijan more than a billion dollars worth of arms.

By porkinspolicyreview | Comments (0)

Is this legal???

January 20, 2012 – 4:15 pm

Gawker reported today on an article in the Atlanta Jewish Times, written by the editor, in which he lays out Israel’s three choices for dealing with Iran. The first two are predictable Israel-Firster policies, attack Hamas and Hezbollah, attack Iran. The third choice takes a very terrifying turn; assassinate President Barack Obama. Here is how owner and editor Andrew Adler describes how option three would work:

“Three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.

Yes, you read “three” correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles?

Another way of putting “three” in perspective goes something like this: How far would you go to save a nation comprised of seven million lives…Jews, Christians and Arabs alike?

You have got to believe, like I do, that all options are on the table.”

As you can except this left me pretty floored. Gawker describes a “nervous” Adler trying to walk back his comments in the article. He claims that he didn’t really mean any of what he said, and wrote it merely to see what sort of reaction he would get. Even if this is true, which I don’t believe for a second, I am pretty sure that this sort of speech is not protected by the first amendment. The rule of thumb when writing or talking about assassinating the President of the Unites States is that you will definitely be investigated by the secret service. As well you should be.

Now I can already hear everyone yelling “he’s a yahoo, he wasn’t being serious”. At best he is an unadulterated moron for writing that Israel should not take of the table the option to murder the U.S. President. At worst he is a warmongering American citizen advocating killing his own leader so that Israel can “obliterate it’s enimies” and make the Middle East safe.

If a mentally deranged Muslim person went and xeroxed their newsletter saying we should kill President Obama, or better yet Prime Minister Netanyahu, I guarantee he would be arrested. I guarantee that the news would not stop talking about it either. Of course we should note that only white terrorists are capable of being the victims of mental disease. I can’t remember the last time I heard of a person of color accused of terrorism getting off due to insanity. Before we write this guy off as a nut job, let’s keep in mind that our current President has been the target of
more assassination attempts in recent years than previous administrations. It is this sort of political language that has destroyed the environment in which diplomacy

By porkinspolicyreview | Also posted in U.S. policy | Comments (0)