Ma fi Hal

2010-12-24T14:58:00.000-08:00

I have officially postponed my phd after one year. It was a great year,I learned so much and made many new friends. I have given my blog a new title as I hope to write some articles now and again as a way of staying in touch with the issues of which I am interested in, including, Lebanese and Palestinian politics, the Israeli/Palestinian peace process/conflict, Hamas and Hizbullah and the Israeli/axis of resistance conflict. After much deliberation I have decided to call my blog Ma fi Hal which is arabic for "There is no solution" regarding a peaceful solution to the Israeli/Palestinian peace process, the Israeli/Hizbullah conflict, internal Palestinian politics or the intricacy of solving the dilemma's of internal Lebanese politics. All these issues are intertwined in conjunction with the problem of Iran and other vital actors in the region such as Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. If there is ever a solution to these issues I will gladly stop writing about them.I hope it comes in my lifetime but am not optimistic.I listened to a great presentation earlier by the very respected Palestinian Khalil Shikaki on the peace process and the road ahead for the Palestinians and he portrayed a sombre picture.You can listen to it here-The Peace Process,What Palestinians will do and why ? It encapsulates the complexity of Palestinian politics and decision making regarding the peace process. It is extremely difficult to see a solution and the road ahead looks increasingly dim.The situation in Lebanon has become increasingly tense in regard to the indictment of Hizbullah members in the International Tribunal for Lebanon. Although many Lebanese have realised that it may be better to sacrifice justice for stability in Lebanon by thwarting the realization of the tribunal a delicate balance is needed so as to appease both the side of justice and those feeling threatened by what Hizbullah claims is a politicalization of the tribunal as a means to defeat Hizbullah.The next few months will be very interesting in Lebanon. Many Lebanese politicians and analysts have been mentioning since early this year that the indictments are likely very soon but at this stage I believe the indictments will not come out until after the new year, probably closer to March or April, a good reason for which Johnathan Spyer gives here- Hizbullah's throne of bayonets. Michael Young from the Daily Star offers good analysis on the Lebanese Daily Star at www.dailystar.com.lb in the opinion column and he has scoffed at the thoughts of any indictments before the end of this year as early as last July-see his article here-Are we fools to expect indictments soon? Irish soldiers will return to Lebanon next year-Irish troops returning to Lebanon-in around the time when the indictments will most likely be issued and tense times in Lebanon! Tension in Lebanon though is part of daily life,whether it is the constant threat of assassinations of political leaders, invasions from Israel or bombings in neighborhoods. Sometimes these periods of tension pass as in the summer of 2008 when there was a constant fear of an Israeli invasion and other times conflict erupts when nobody expects it such as in the 2006 summer war when Israel invaded Lebanon again.Many in Lebanon are currently fearing a civil war as Lebanese hold no reason to have faith in the strength of the state of Lebanon. Despite these uncertainties and fears events are logical and consistent in Lebanon when analysed against the prevailing situation, messages and interpretations signaled by actors in Lebanon and the region. Hizbullah has been clear in denouncing the tribunal. The Lebanese have the most to lose. Hizbullah possesses the means, the confessional support in vital areas of importance and has the capability to take over the state in a short period of time. This is no secret, Hizbullah has made clear it's intention several times(and again this week promising to "cut off the hand" of anyone trying to arrest a Hizbullah member) because as in May 2008 it does not wish it's hand to be forced as it wants to maintain unity in what it considers as an International,U.S. Israeli plot to discredit it. Hizbullah sees it as yet another attack against the organisation in a long line of attacks since 2006 in an effort to curtail it's military and political influence within Lebanon. The Lebanese eventually sort out their internal political problems and stalemates but now due to the fact that the Hariri tribunal is an International issue which has International support, pressure and momentum, Hizbullah is been pushed into a corner with no release in sight. As the indictments approach the options of the various actors are numerous, including those of Hizbullah, Syria, Iran and Israel. These include the instigation of a demonstration, sit-in, walk out of government, the initiation of a sub-servient group of which there are many to any of the main players to carry out an assassination or an attack prior to or during the initial phase of the indictments. An attack against the International Tribunal in Lebanon by many of the actors is a possibility in sowing further confusion and instability in Lebanon all indicating that unless the tribunal goes away in Lebanon there will be no stability.

Phd Postponement

2010-11-24T14:20:00.000-08:00

I am postponing my phd for 18 months at least as I am concentrating on training for the cycling race across america in 2012. This has been a dream and long time goal of mine for many years.I have an opportunity to do this race now in 2012 with logistical and some financial backing and so I have decided to postpone my phd so I can concentrate on training.I will still say in touch with my research field and various topics and will use this blog as a way to express my ideas and opinions.I will be upgraded for year 2 next month so will still have my first year done and when I return I will be able to go straight to the research site in the West Bank and begin my research.

Phd Progress

2010-09-27T14:01:00.000-07:00

I have'nt been doing as much as I would have liked in the last few months due to training for the race around Ireland however I have an article published in the new UCC postgraduate journal which will appear for the first time in October and is called "The Boolean". The article is an explanation of what my research is about and entitiled "Islamism and Nationalism in the Palestinian Territories, The Palestinian Experience" There is an opening lanch for the journal on 6th Oct at UCC which I will attend. I am delighted to be one of the first authors for the first journal. I must have 10,000 words written for my supervisor for the middle of November so I can be upgraded to my second year. I must produce a literature review of my research area, including chapter outlines and methodology. I will then give my department a brief and answer questions on my written work. UCC are also holding its annual postgraduate conference in November which I would like to submit a paper for. I am thinking of doing a paper on "Isalmism and Nationalism in the Palestinian territories in the context of the current peace process". The impact the success or failure of the peace process has on the Idelogical affiliation of Palestinians will provide some interesting insights.

Building Palestine under Occupation

2010-09-27T13:55:00.000-07:00

The New America Foundation American Strategy Program/Middle East Task Force and the Palestine Note held an open discussion with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, touching on the future of a Palestinian state, the challenges of building state institutions under occupation, and the state of Palestinian politics

It's like Oslo again and the results could be the same.

2010-08-24T16:36:00.000-07:00

Direct talks between the Palestinians and Israelis are set to start on Sept 2nd.Many of the reasons for entering these talks by both sides are much the same reasons for which both the Fatah led PLO and Israel embarked on the Oslo peace process in the early nineties.That process ended in failure and the current process is also likely to end in failure where the consequences of failure could be equally as disastarous.Political decision making by the Palestinian Authority, Fatah and the PLO in regard to the peace process cannot be understood without understanding the long term internal conflict between Fatah and Hamas and the struggle between secularism and Islamism within the Palestinian territories.
In the early nineties after the outbreak of the first Intifada Islamism and Hamas were on the rise in the Palestinian territories as Hamas sought to put a religious stamp on the conflict with Israel and to blame the failure of the Palestinians on supporting the more secular Fatah and on the abandonment of Islam. According to Hamas only a return to Islam could ensure victory against the Israeli's.In 1992 Hamas was in a position to defeat Fatah electorally after gaining significant support in Palestinian society within professsional associations and the universitites such as the Islamic university of Gaza. Hamas came into significance after two decades of consistent grassroots charitable work and financial support from the Israeli's in building mosques which multiplied in number. At a time when Palestinian Nationalism was on the rise Israel sought in the early seventies and eighties to crush rising secular nationalism in the West Bank and Gaza while supporting the Islamist movement to combat the nationalists. The Israeli's and the Islamists shared the same goal of wanting to eliminate the Nationalists.While Fatah members were been arrested and their activites broken up Islamists were given a free hand to organise and conduct their activities. The charitable organisation Al Mujama led by Sheikh Yasin were given a free hand to operate within the Palestinian territories and were allowed to register with the Israeli authorities and attained a licence to operate as an official charity organisation.However,as the Intifada progressed and Israeli's were been attacked by the Islamist Hamas it was no longer viable for Israel to co-opt the Islamists and they were banned as an organisation.Arafat recognised Israel and embarked on peace talks with Israel which led to the 1993 Oslo accords.This was in part in a response to Hamas's rising popularity and a means to isloate the movement.The peace process then was a process that was conducted by a Palestinian elite heavily influenced by the U.S and did not represent the wishes of all Palestinian society much the same as the process today. Hamas refused to be part of the process in Oslo which it believed was not in the interests of the Palestinian people much the same as Hamas' stance in not supporting the current peace process. Any success in the peace process will lead to increased support for Fatah and isolate Hamas and if the peace process falters Hamas will gain support as it did after the failure of the Oslo process. Ironically Israel and U.S. policy of supporting Fatah and isolating Hamas has ultimately led to incresed support for Hamas when the peace process broke down and has made reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah increasingly more difficult.U.S. and Israeli interference in Palestinian politics has been a serious impediment to Palestinian unity. Hamas is confident the peace process will fail and is waiting on the sidelines to reap the rewards of failure to reach an agreement.Many scholars and academics who study Hamas and Islamism in the Palestinian territories such as Beverley Milton Edwards(see her lastest book HAMAS)believe that Hamas should be engaged as "There is no solution that does'nt include Hamas" As the process falters Hamas could initiate demonstrations and make announcements that assist in its efforts to increasingly Islamise the Palestinian conflict.Mahmoud Abbas is thus threading carefully as he knows the consequences of failure.After the Oslo process and recognising Israel the Palestinians felt they did not see any results of the process that was supposed to lead to a Palestinian state and a better life for the Palestinians.Indeed,by the year2000 Palestinians felt their lives were more miserable and settlement construction continued unabated.When people are miserable and they see no hope, religion can be a powerful pulling factor and in a conservative society such as in the Palestinian territories that pulling factor is Hamas.There has been much talk of a third Intifada. Hamas will be eager to initiate an uprising at the right time which increases its support in response to a failing peace process and a frustrated Palestinian population.

Nasrallah-"It’s the Hizbullah way in Lebanon or else”

2010-07-25T16:04:00.000-07:00

Nasrallah’s press conference last Thursday confirms yet again that Hizbullah is kingmaker in Lebanon and its secretary general holds the real power in Lebanon. Although Hizbullah similar to many Islamist groups fairs well in elections, and although elections provide legitimacy they count for nought when you are Hizbullah with an army that can take over the country when it wishes to do so. More importantly is the fact that after the events of May 7 2008 all the other sects are fully aware that Hizbullah can and will flex it's muscles if pushed to do so. The current tension in Lebanon is due to the possible indictment of Hizbullah members in the Special Tribunal for Lebanon to find those who were behind the assassination of Rafiq Hariri in 2005.
In July 2006 when Israel launched its war on Hizbullah and Lebanon many in the March 14th alliance backed by the U.S. undoubtedly hoped for the destruction of Hizbullah. After Hizbullah survived and claimed a ‘divine victory’ another plan by March 14th and again prodded and backed by the U.S. to deal with Hizbullah was implemented when it tired to dismantle Hizbullah’s telecommunications network and replace Hizbullah’s chief of security at the airport. This was a red line for Hizbullah which the March 14th alliance was fully aware of but it undoubtedly implemented the plan having confidence in the backing of the U.S. Hizbullah seen this action as a further extension of the war against Hizbullah except this time by political means. This led to forcing Hizbullah’s hand and the events of May 7 2008 when Hizbullah forces took over West Beirut.In fact, the events which were instigated by the U.S. ended up strengthening Hizbullah by leading to a political solution at Doha that gave Hizbullah the veto it had been vying for. Since then support for the March 14th alliance has dwindled from the U.S. and those in the March 14th alliance were left to pick up the pieces and eventually with no choice but to re-align with Syria and Hizbullah exacerbated by the Syrian/Saudi re-approachment. This was reflected initially by Walid Jumblatt breaking from the March 14th alliance and his re-alignment with Hizbullah and Syria. In the absence of continued and consistent U.S. support Jumblatt, a pragmatist, has seen the interests of his small Druze community to be better positioned on the side of Hizbullah and Syria. Said Hariri, helped by the re-approachment of Syria and Saudi Arabia has since visited Damascus and numerous bilateral acccords have been signed between Syria and Lebanon recently.
In Nasrallah’s press conference on the Special Tribunal he demanded March 14th leaders to ‘consider the choices they made’ in reference to events between 2005-2009 when the Cedar Revolution resulted in the forced departure of Syria from Lebanon and a political stand off between the March 14th western backed alliance and the March 8th Alliance led by Hizbullah. Nasrallah's last comment indicated the fate of those who don’t side with Hizbullah. “Those who conspire against the Resistance and against Lebanon are the ones who should worry. I would like to tell some people, who always miscalculated, to make the correct calculations this time.”
After numerous assassinations carried out against members of the March 14th alliance between 2005-2007 including Antoine Ghanem in Sept 2007 politicians are well aware what Nasrallah refers to when he says they should worry.In the absence of a coherent and consistent U.S. policy in Lebanon and the presence of the Islamist group Hizbullah those left within the March 14th Alliance have little choice but to concede to Hizbullah in what they consider to be the temporary best interests of their sects and national unity as Hizbullah continues the successful process of directing Lebanon according to its agenda within Lebanon and in the region.

Divided Palestine-A Barrier to Peace

2010-07-23T14:41:00.000-07:00

Here's a good discussion on the Palestinian issue

Hizbullah's troublesome Turkish embrace by Michael Young

2010-07-04T05:32:00.001-07:00

Daily Star
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Hizbullah has been terribly excitable in recent weeks. It has threatened, condemned, demanded, and warned, all suggesting the party is not quite relaxed about the prevailing political situation.
First it was the party’s ambiguities about the ships to be sent from Beirut to Gaza; then its tough position on the offshore oil dispute with Israel. Then it was Hizbullah MP Kamel al-Rifai promising that the party would soon “confront American defamation campaigns” and prepare a list of individuals, parties and clubs collaborating with the US. And this week villagers in the south, in actions very likely orchestrated by Hizbullah, blocked roads and attacked UNIFIL vehicles. This came after an Alfa employee was arrested allegedly for being a Mossad spy, allowing Hizbullah to caution that Israel controls the Lebanese telecoms sector.
Hizbullah’s message is clear: the enemy is everywhere. For a party that needs enemies to survive, this is understandable. However, there is something deeper at play, a malaise with the fact that the situation in Lebanon and the Middle East is not to the party’s liking.
Hizbullah appears to have been put out by the Turkish reaction to the Gaza flotilla incident a few weeks ago. While many in the West saw only Ankara’s hostility against Israel, the perspective from the region was different, and played itself out against a backdrop of Arab fears of Iran’s rising power; or less subtly, Sunni Arab fears of Shiite Iran.
The Palestinian issue is at the heart of the so-called “resistance agenda,” which Hizbullah claims to embody best. Since 2005, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has used the Palestinians as a battering ram to enhance Iran’s legitimacy among the Arabs, while delegitimizing the Arab’s own passive regimes. But now Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has stepped in and the Arabs, their sectarian impulses kicking in, have elected Turkey as their foremost champion.
Turkey’s push on the Palestinian front may lead in several directions that Hizbullah finds worrisome. For starters, Erdogan has arrogated the right to speak in the name of Hamas, recently declaring that the movement is not a terrorist organization. Given Turkish influence over Syria, which hosts Hamas’ leader Khaled Meshaal, this throws a new variable into Hizbullah’s relation with the Palestinian Islamist movement.
Nor could Hizbullah’s secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah, have failed to notice the sudden outpouring of enthusiasm in Beirut for Turkey after the Gaza incident, especially from the likes of Prime Minister Saad Hariri and Walid Jumblatt. Their endorsements were implicitly and even explicitly directed against Iran’s way of doing things in the Middle East. Saying yes to Turkey has become shorthand in Lebanon and the region for saying no to Iran and its allies.
More generally, what does it mean for Hizbullah if Turkey displaces Iran and the party itself as the main spokesmen for the Palestinian cause – all the time remaining friendly with Tehran and even defending it internationally? What it means, in tangible terms, is that the Turks have a greater say in matters of war and peace in the region when it comes to Israel. It also means they will examine more closely how actions by Iran, Syria, and Hizbullah might affect Turkey’s interests. That complicates matters for Hizbullah, because suddenly the party’s freedom to use Lebanon on Iran’s behalf as an instrument of deterrence against Israel is lessened.
Even internally the situation has shifted. Hizbullah has growled in recent weeks that any domestic attempt to use possible indictments by the Hariri tribunal against the party might provoke a new onslaught against the Sunnis, similar to that of May 2008. But how realistic is that today? Not very. Hariri has played the Turkish card to the hilt, and the sudden consolidation of Sunni local and regional solidarity in favor of Palestine and against Iran, in many ways default positions for the community, greatly constrains Hizbullah.
And so, Hizbullah watches with trepidation as new actors are hijacking its symbols. If Turkey emerges as a new power, what will it mean for Syria’s dependency on Iran? The thought of an emerging alignment of Sunni-dominated states in which an unabashedly Muslim Turkey, led by moderate Islamists, seizes the choice role, is not something reassuring for Tehran, which still considers the weak states of the Gulf as an open field for Iranian hegemony.
This is what explains Hizbullah’s sudden burst of paranoid energy. By artificially playing up dangers left and right, the party is trying to reposition itself, both within the Shiite community and in Lebanese society, as the vanguard force defending against Israel and the United States. Hizbullah thrives on conflict, but Erdogan threatens to take the conflict card out of the party’s hands and play it at a table where Hizbullah cannot compete, and where Iran might lose out.
Above all, Hizbullah is concerned about its latitude to retaliate against an Israeli or American attack against Iran. Turkey may be critical of Israel, but it hasn’t severed diplomatic ties. It could come to play a crucial role as mediator to head off a Lebanese-Israeli confrontation, while also using its sway over Damascus to hold Syria in check.
Turkey has a contingent in UNIFIL, whose term was extended only last week. That southern villagers should be raising the heat on the international force now does not appear to be a coincidence in light of the decision. The party cannot afford to attack the Turks head on, but by discrediting the UN mission, Hizbullah may be out to undermine any eventual Turkish role, especially in conjunction with the UN, as the go-between with Israel over Lebanon.
Fear those closest to you, the saying goes. Hizbullah has never seemed so destabilized as when facing the troublesome Turkish embrace.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR. His “The Ghosts of Martyrs Square: An Eyewitness Account of Lebanon’s Life Struggle” (Simon & Schuster) has just been published.

The mood in Israel

2010-06-02T08:18:00.000-07:00

Heres a good article by Jeffrey Goldberg on the mood in Israel.

"There's real pain in Israel today, pain at the humiliation of the flotilla raid, pain on behalf of the injured soldiers, and pain that the geniuses who run this country could not figure out a way to out-smart a bunch of Turkish Islamists and their useful idiot fellow travelers".

Book Review:Identity and Religion in Palestine

2010-06-02T03:35:00.000-07:00

Loren D. Lybarger
Identity and Religion in Palestine: The Struggle between Islamism and secularism in the Occupied Territories.
Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2007.
246pp. $37.31
ISBN-13: 978-0-961-1279-3
Review by Donncha Cuttriss
At a time when there seems to be no movement towards a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians and no reconciliation between Palestinians themselves represented by the split between Hamas and Fatah this book provides a much needed insider’s account and analysis of the Ideological struggle within Palestinian society. Lybarger who is assistant professor of religions at Ohio state university worked in the West Bank as an English teacher during the outbreak of the first Intifada in December 1987 also carrying out research in Thawra refugee camp near Bethlehem and further research in Karama refugee camp in the Gaza Strip in 1999-2000. Lybarger who is fulent in Palestinian Arabic conducted more than eighty in-depth life history interviews from a diverse range within Palestinian society who had come of age politically during the first Intifada.
The book is broken down into five chapters which are easily followed including a chapter each on the general secular and Isalmist milieus and followed by both a chapter on the Thawra and Karama refugee camps. The first chapter begins with an explanation of the particularity of secular and Islamist dynamics within Palestinian society and the regional perspective. While pointing to the relationship between the secular milieu, nationalism and Fatah and the Islamist milieu, Hamas and Islamic Jihad Lybarger reveals a theme that is apparent throughout the book in that “Palestinian society does not fall neatly into two camps, Islamist or secular nationalist” (p. 7). The Islamist milieu is contextualized within a regional framework and compared with the Islamist Hizbullah in Lebanon and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The uniqness in the Palestinian setting, as Lybarger explains, is that the Palestinian struggle for a nation and P.L.O. Nationalism was Islamized resulting in a “new Palestinian Islamism” in which Islamists sought to represent the entire nation in its liberation.
In the second chapter “The Secular Natioanlist Milieu” Lybarger gives the readers a rare insight into how the identities of Muslim and Christian Palestinian’s were orientated concomitant with the rise of Fathawi nationalism and integration into P.L.O. structures. While many books have dealt with the collective Palestinian struggle, Palestinian nationalism and the P.L.O. Lybarger focuses in this and other chapters on the Palestinians themselves, how their identities were formed whether Muslim or Christian, what were their ideological and religious views in the struggle for a Palestinian state and how they responded individually with the struggle between Islamism and secular nationalism. Lybarger’s depiction on female Palestinians is particularly insightful “Female activists felt the strain of the struggle between Islamism and secular nationalism most acutely. Islamism had made women’s bodies a field of cultural-political contestation”. He concludes that the secular nationalist Fatah supporters in response to the Islamist challenge had adopted three different responses in what he calls neo Fathawism, Islam without Islamism and neo-pan-Arabism. Throughout the chapter where the interviewee’s are quoted at length the reader gains an appreciation of the divergent Palestinian viewpoints due to the individual’s family circumstances, education, customs and traditions and a new working professional class within the secularist P.L.O structure.
Lybarger’s third chapter switches to the Islamist Milieu and again after a historical account of Islamism in the Palestinian territories and the background of Hamas Lybarber gives an account as to why Palestinians chose the Islamist route. Again here, through the oral account of his interviewee’s the reader gets a sense of the many differing reasons and perspectives of Palestinians more supportive of the Islamist agenda. An insight into the ideological choices of Palestinian women is again particularly interesting as is the reasons to why there was a move from Fathawi nationalism toward a more Islamist Palestinian nationalism. “Fathawi structures increasingly proved incapable of integrating religiously orientated activists as the 1980’s progressed”.
In chapters four and five Lybarger explores in detail the forming of identities in Thawra refugee camp in the West Bank and Karama refugee camp in Gaza. Due to the contrasting cultural and political dynamics between the two camps the reader gains an appreciation and insight into how identities were formed in both camps. Lybarger argues that “milieu boundaries were shifting as activists selectively adapted the symbols and narratives of the competing orientations to produce new identities that creatively integrated religious and secularist-nationalist themes”. Lybarger gives convincing evidence through his analysis of his interviewee’s in that “what it meant to be secularist or Islamist appeared not to track evenly with milieu location or faction membership”. This is a theme that runs throughout the book. Lybarger again reaches conclusions in chapter four on conceptions of solidarity in which he categorizes his findings into the formation of four ideological groups – sheer secularism, Islamic secularism, Liberal Islamism and sheer Islamism. These categories which he explains and are easily understood form the explanation to his thesis of shifting and interwoven categorizations of the secular and Islamist milieus. The lives of the Palestinians living in both camps who represent these categories are described and quoted continuously by Lybarger in both chapter four and five. Their ideological positions are explained along with the reasons for their factional alliances. Through this the reader gains an easy understanding of Lybarger’s themes and arguments which again run consistently throughout the book.
Although Lybarger mentions the struggle with Israel intermittently as it influenced Palestinians ideological connections and transformations, an indebt chapter on the relationship between Israeli military actions and the shifts between the secular and Islamist milieu would be insightful. Undoubtedly, Israeli military incursions at different times into both Gaza and the West Bank had a significant impact on the daily lives of Palestinians. Also, the extent of the effect in assassinating Islamist leaders had on Palestinian Identity and Ideological shifts would add to Lybarger’s book.
Lybarger’s book is a necessity for any scholar, researcher or student interested in the Islamist and secular shifting ideological internal dynamics of Palestinian society.

Israel was Right - L.H. Gelb -The Daily Beast

2010-06-01T07:56:00.000-07:00

Two Palestinian militants were killed in Israel Tuesday morning after sneaking across the border from Gaza, and Israeli security forces remain on high alert as the international fallout from the country’s botched raid on an aid flotilla trying to reach Gaza—during which at least nine people died—continues. The Daily Beast's Leslie H. Gelb says Israeli commandos mishandled the situation, but Israel was right to storm a ship bound for Gaza.

Israel had every right under international law to stop and board ships bound for the Gaza war zone late Sunday. Only knee-jerk left-wingers and the usual legion of poseurs around the world would dispute this. And it is pretty clear that this "humanitarian" flotilla headed for Gaza aimed to provoke a confrontation with Israel. Various representatives of the Free Gaza Movement, one of the main organizers of this deadly extravaganza, have let it slip throughout Monday that their intention was every bit as much "to break" Israel's blockade of Gaza as to deliver the relief goods.

The Israeli commandos who stormed the ship, where fighting erupted, badly mishandled the situation. But theirs was a mistake in pursuit of a legal goal, not a war crime. And as for calls for international investigations, they represent the usual hypocritical nonsense that will go nowhere. Except for those who routinely fool themselves about the judiciousness and effectiveness of action by the United Nations or the European Union, everyone understands their "investigations" will amount to nothing. Only the United States might do something useful—if the White House would only seize quickly the practical solution staring it in the face.

Israel has every right to protect itself under international law, including by blockades in international waters.

Regarding international law, blockades are quite legal. The United States and Britain were at war with Germany and Japan and blockaded them. I can't remember international lawyers saying those blockades were illegal—even though they took place on the high seas in international waters. There would be a general violation only if the hostile actions against the ships took place in waters under the jurisdiction of another sovereign state. Thus, for example, if the Israelis stopped the ships in Egyptian waters, that would have been a violation.

On a more tactical level, violations could occur if the force used to block and board were "disproportionate" to the circumstances. Those friendly to Gaza aboard the ship claim disproportionality, but this is not supported by the video available. In any event, and as a practical matter, no one is going to be able to prove exactly what happened on that ship Sunday night. Nonetheless, the overriding facts remain that Gazan leaders proclaim their goal is to destroy Israel, have tried for years to do so by missile attacks and terrorism, and that Israel has every right to protect itself under international law, including by blockades in international waters.

As for what the planners of this "humanitarian" flotilla had in mind, just listen to what the leaders of this enterprise have been saying. Greta Berlin, a leader of the pro-Palestinian Free Gaza Movement, told The New York Times that the Israeli claim that the people aboard the ship intended violence was preposterous. She argued that it was inconceivable that the civilian passengers on board would have been "waiting up to fire on the Israeli military, with all its might." By that keen logic, no Palestinian ever would have fired upon a militarily superior Israeli. We seem to know otherwise.

Or listen to Huwaida Arraf, one of the Free Gaza Movement leaders. She said on Sunday before the incident that the boats would steam forward to Gaza "until they either disable our boats or jump on board." How on earth did she expect that strategy would not lead to violence?

On what remains of the old Lehrer News Hour, Adam Shapiro, another Free Gaza guy, said Monday night that the flotilla aimed to break the blockade as well as deliver aid. Well, of course, no one asked him how he thought the blockade would be broken without violence. It couldn't—unless the flotilla escaped detection. And with six ships in the flotilla, that was highly unlikely.

So, the Free guys and gals achieved their real purpose—to provoke the Israelis, hope they did stupid things (which they did by boarding the ship with commandos who weren't prepared to do this job), and stirred international outrage.

Ah, the international outrage. Turks, French, all leaders large and small condemned Israel and called for international commissions. Ban Ki-Moon, the United Nations Secretary-General, said he was "shocked" by the attack. He condemned the violence, and added: "It is vital that there is a full investigation to determine exactly how this bloodshed took place. I believe Israel must urgently provide a full explanation."
Well, where was all that international outrage and demand for explanations and retribution when the North Koreans sunk a South Korean ship? Where was it when the Gazans attacked Israel? Where, when Afghan men flogged their women for not wearing veils? Where, when Saudi Arabia funds terrorists around the world? This international outrage is highly selective, isn't it? The one consolation is that the international community, such as it has become, doesn't get anything of value done.

Which puts matters in the American lap, as usual. There is a reasonable solution to this terrible dilemma: The Gazan people are in need of food and medicine, and Israel must protect itself against Gazan terrorists. President Obama should propose this simple arrangement: First, those wishing to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza agree to land aircraft, dock ships, and use land checkpoints all reasonably designated by Israel for inspection of contents. Second, Israel agrees to inspect cargoes within two to three days, and allow all humanitarian goods to proceed to Gaza immediately.

The United States surely has the power to accomplish this. It would prevent much needless killing and haggling—and phony posturing around the world. And if one or both sides rejected the deal, then that one, or the both of them, are on their own.

Outlaws of the Mediterranean - MERIP Report

2010-06-01T04:17:00.000-07:00

At 4 am Eastern Mediterranean time on May 31, elite Israeli commandos rappelled from helicopters onto the deck of the Turkish-registered ship Mavi Marmara, part of an international “Freedom Flotilla” that had met in Cyprus and then set sail to deliver humanitarian relief supplies to the besieged Gaza Strip. The Mavi Marmara, the largest of the relief vessels, was carrying some 600 activists, mainly Turks but also others of diverse nationalities. The commandos fired live ammunition at some of the passengers, who Israel claims were lightly armed with metal rods or knives, and may have resisted the raid. Some reports say that other ships were also boarded and/or fired upon. The lowest reported death toll among the activists is nine, and the lowest number of wounded is 34.

The details are unclear, because Israel took custody of the entire flotilla and everyone on board, dragging the ships to the port of Ashdod, where the wounded are being treated and everyone else “processed” at a detention center prepared for the purpose. Communications with all the aid vessels were cut shortly after the raid, and journalists have strictly limited access to the Ashdod facility, which is located in the section of the port belonging to the Israeli navy. The news blackout has been near total, but official Israeli sources have made it known that those of the activists who are unhurt will be deported, except a handful who refused to sign deportation orders and will be jailed. Seven hundred activists in total were aboard the flotilla.

Reaction to the raid, from Turkey to the European Union to the UN, has been swift and (almost) universally condemnatory. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called it an act of “state terrorism.” Turkey currently sits on the UN Security Council, which convened an emergency meeting. That meeting went into closed session as night fell on May 31. Meanwhile, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri dubbed the raid a “crazy move.” EU countries have summoned Israeli ambassadors to demand an explanation. “No one in the world will believe the lies and excuses which the government and army spokesmen come up with,” said Uri Avnery, a former member of the Israeli Knesset and leader of the Gush Shalom peace group in Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu canceled a visit to Washington scheduled for June 1 -- perhaps in tacit agreement with Avnery, though it seems at least possible that President Barack Obama did not wish to be seen “standing with Israel” on this occasion. Publicly, in any case, the White House remains the odd man out, saying only that it “regrets the loss of life” and is “working to understand the circumstances of the tragedy.”

Much is unknown for certain about the commando operation, but it is nonetheless a moment of clarity in the ongoing drama surrounding Israel’s 43-year occupation of Palestinian lands and its ten-year siege of Gaza, which has been tightened to a stranglehold since the Islamist party Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections. Once again, Israel has made the asymmetry of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict crystal clear. With this raid upon a peaceful ship on the high seas, Israel has made clear its disdain for international law -- and its contempt for the notion that it will be held accountable for its violations. Israel will persist in this behavior until someone, and that someone is the United States, ends its impunity.

Who?

The “Freedom Flotilla” was a convoy of six ships, three bearing passengers and three cargo, organized by the Free Gaza Movement, a coalition of Palestine solidarity activists from Europe, North America, the Middle East and elsewhere. Two additional boats are being held in reserve in Cyprus. The Free Gaza Movement grew out of the first effort to bring aid by sea, in August 2008, when what organizer Huwaida Arraf called “two humble boats” arrived in the coastal strip with a shipment of hearing aids for Gazans deafened by the sonic booms of Israeli warplanes. Subsequent convoys have delivered other goods, despite attempts by the Israeli navy to deter them. In the summer of 2009, Israel interdicted an aid vessel and diverted it to Ashdod.

The activists are motivated by the desire to “break the siege of Gaza” and “raise international awareness” of Gazans’ plight, according the movement’s website. In one of eight “points of unity” on the site, the group members pledge: “We agree to adhere to the principles of non-violence and non-violent resistance in word and deed at all times.” These tactics, expressing activists’ frustration with the official international community’s inaction on Palestine and aiming to embarrass Israel in the global media, are in line with the peaceful campaigns of Palestinians and Israelis to stop construction of Israel’s wall in the West Bank. They also resemble the goals of the International Solidarity Movement, a group founded by Arraf and her husband Adam Shapiro that housed internationals with Palestinians in the West Bank (and, previously, Gaza) as witnesses to everyday excesses of occupation.

Arraf, a Palestinian-American, was aboard a smaller ship of the “Freedom Flotilla,” along with as many as 12 other US citizens, possibly including an ex-ambassador and also Code Pink activist Ann Wright, a retired Army colonel. Three German members of Parliament embarked on the boats, as well as nationals of Britain, Ireland, Greece, Canada, Belgium, Sweden, Australia and Israel, perhaps among other countries. The precise passenger lists of the seized boats are unknown, due to logistical confusion in port in Cyprus. According to Shapiro, Holocaust survivor Hedy Epstein, who was scheduled to travel to Gaza, remained in Cyprus, as did the Irish Nobel laureate Mairead Corrigan. Among the passengers who did depart is Hanan Zu‘bi, a Palestinian citizen of Israel and member of Knesset. Thus far, the blackout has covered up her whereabouts as well.

On board the Mavi Marmara were hundreds of Turks affiliated with the Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (known by its Turkish acronym, IHH), an Islamist organization whose relationship with Turkey’s “soft Islamist” ruling party, the AKP, is fraught. Close to the AKP’s more overtly Islamist precursor parties, which were banned by the Turkish courts, the IHH views the AKP as defectors who are insufficiently vocal in their engagement with “Islamic” issues, notably Palestine. The government did nothing to stop the IHH from departing for Cyprus, despite warnings from its nominal ally Israel, for fear that its own “Islamic” credentials might be further questioned. Early reports say that six Turks are among the dead, meaning that this incident will reverberate loudly in Turkish politics.

What?

Spin doctors in Israel have been working fast and furious to mold the metanarrative of what happened aboard the Mavi Marmara. The American mainstream media has mostly concentrated on Israeli allegations that some of the activists were carrying weapons and thus posed a threat to the lives of the highly trained Israel Defense Forces (IDF) commandos. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman told European diplomats that the ship’s passengers were “terrorist supporters who fired at IDF soldiers as soon as the latter boarded the ships.” An IDF-distributed video, shot from a helicopter, shows what appears to be a melee on deck and says the activists tried to “kidnap” a soldier. The goal is to spread the story that the commandos acted in self-defense. To this tale, Adam Shapiro replies, “Our understanding is that Israeli soldiers fired first.” In Ashdod, the Associated Press briefly glimpsed one American passenger, who blurted out, “I’m not violent. What I can tell you is that there are bruises all over my body. They won’t let me show them to you,” before being hustled away.

Again, minus the carefully impounded testimony of the activists themselves, it is difficult to know what exactly precipitated the shooting. It is certainly clear that the raid itself was no panicking naval captain’s improvisation, but was approved by the Israeli security cabinet under the imprimatur of Defense Minister Ehud Barak. According to the IDF’s official statement, “This IDF naval operation was carried out under orders from the political leadership to halt the flotilla from reaching the Gaza Strip and breaching the naval blockade.”

The dispute over who started the on-board combat misses the point, however. From a legal point of view, the Israeli operation was completely out of bounds and Israel is the aggressor. The raid occurred in international waters, meaning that Israel violated the convoy’s right of free navigation. Richard Falk, an international legal scholar and the UN Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, says that the raid is “clearly a criminal act, being on the high seas.” Falk explains that storming a peaceful boat is akin to a home invasion, with the aggravating circumstance that the invaded space in this case was packed with goods intended to alleviate human suffering. “The people on these boats would have some right of self-defense,” Falk continues, as they were the ones who were under unprovoked attack. Israel’s claim of self-defense is preposterous, no matter who threw the first punch, because Israel’s self is not located at sea.

Before the convoy sailed, Israeli passenger Dror Feiler speculated that if the Israeli navy tried to stop the ships by force, “they’ll be the new pirates of the Mediterranean.” The Free Gaza Movement has echoed this charge, as has the Financial Times in its May 31 editorial denouncing “this brazen act of piracy.” This particular accusation will not stick, for the simple reason that by maritime law a state cannot commit piracy, but again it is important not to get tangled up in words. Israel has no legal leg to stand on, because it mounted a military assault upon a civilian boat (which is not, by any conceivable law, barred from carrying knives and metal rods) in waters not its own.

Why?

In part because of the murky details, early commentary on the commando raid has focused on the atmospherics. Everyone except the Israeli state and its kneejerk defenders, like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), believes that Israel has done itself a great disservice, at least in public relations terms. Writing in the May 31 edition of Ha’aretz, columnist Bradley Burston lamented that Israel’s foes have switched the spotlight onto the blockade of Gaza, Hamas or no Hamas. Burston continued: “We are no longer defending Israel. We are now defending the siege. The siege itself is becoming Israel’s Vietnam.” On the Huffington Post website, M. J. Rosenberg, formerly of the liberal Israel Policy Forum, quoted blogger Moshe Yaroni saying that the incident is “Israel’s Kent State.”

The operation comes on the heels of the kerfuffle caused by a lengthy essay by Peter Beinart titled, “The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment,” which appears in the June 10 issue of the New York Review of Books. Beinart is the former editor of the pro-Israel magazine The New Republic, and a slowly recovering liberal hawk who backed the 2003 invasion of Iraq (for which he has repented) and authored A Fighting Faith (2004), a book calling for a revival of Cold War bellicosity in liberal foreign policy thinking. His essay lambasts the likes of AIPAC for maintaining its “Israel, right or wrong” stance amidst the rise of blatantly illiberal political forces in Israel and the continuation of the settlement project. Beinart is worried that the pro-Israel reflex will corrode Israel’s support base among American Jewry. “For several decades, the Jewish establishment has asked American Jews to check their liberalism at Zionism’s door,” he writes, “and now, to their horror, they are finding that many young Jews have checked their Zionism instead.” The editors of Foreign Policy were so struck by the essay that they commissioned eight responses.

The hand wringing among Israel’s backers in the US will intensify as the crisis unfolds. The chorus will rise that Israel has overreacted or miscalculated; much blame will be laid at the door of Netanyahu, who is an easy target because of his brusque demeanor and pointed defiance of the Obama White House on settlement construction. Netanyahu, it will be said, has made a “crazy move” and placed the all-important US-Israeli “special relationship” in jeopardy.

It is more plausible that the Netanyahu government calculated this maneuver precisely, exploiting the Free Gaza Movement’s gift of Memorial Day timing, when the Obama administration would be on vacation and hence readily able to make do with a grunt of “regret.” For decades, Israel has tried the patience of the official international community with its military adventures, but whenever that patience has run out, Washington has stepped in to spare Israel the consequences. The glaring example at present, the commando raid excepted, is the winter 2008-2009 assault on Gaza, when Israel bombarded the tiny strip for over a month, killing some 1,300 Palestinians, and claiming as justification the ineffectual rocket fire of Gazan militants. The Obama administration stymied any Security Council consideration of the UN report on that offensive, by retired South African jurist Richard Goldstone, protecting Israel from investigations of possible war crimes. Compared to the carnage in Gaza itself, the casualties among the Free Gaza Movement are few. Israel is counting on the US, once again, to deflect the international furor over its actions and enshrine the principle that Israel can do whatever it wants, legal or not, to the Palestinians and those who try to help them.

What Now?

Perhaps, nonetheless, Israel did miscalculate. Free Gaza Movement members not on the boats are stunned by Israel’s violence, and mournful at the losses in their ranks, but heartened by the alacrity and sharp tone of world reaction to the raid. The next step for the activists, says Shapiro, will be to decide when and where to sail with the two aid vessels still in Cyprus. Gael Murphy of Code Pink predicts that Palestine solidarity networks will be “moved to action” more concerted and determined than before.

In Israel-Palestine, the burning question is the fate of Sheikh Ra’id Salah, a resident of Umm al-Fahm and the leader of the Islamist Movement in Israel. Salah was a passenger in the “Freedom Flotilla,” and Arab media reports have said that he was injured or even killed by the commandos. Many observers believe that if Salah was hurt there will be massive demonstrations by Palestinians both inside and outside Israel, perhaps sparking confrontations and giving Israel the opportunity to reassert control over the crisis and the coverage of the conflict in general.

In Turkey, the government cannot ignore popular protests over the attack on the Mavi Marmara, the largest of which have taken on a religious dimension. On May 31 crowds of Islamists in Istanbul blocked the Trans-European Motorway linking the European and Asian continents, upstaging the faster-moving, but smaller gatherings of leftists. Both the IHH involvement in the convoy and Erdogan’s impassioned denunciation of the raid have painted the AKP into a corner. They must show the Turkish public that they will stand up to Israel and its US patron in the diplomatic arena, and also that they will not abandon the mission of relief for Gaza. The AKP government has canceled three joint Turkish-Israeli military exercises, recalled its ambassador from Tel Aviv and repatriated the national youth soccer team from Israel. Erdogan promised to order a Turkish naval escort for the next flotilla, and with elections not far off in 2011, he may be hard pressed to renege. At the same time, the AKP cannot be completely comfortable in the role in which it has been cast, which increasingly requires it to face down not only the state-secularist establishment in Turkey but also the country’s mightiest friends in Washington. The Obama administration is already irked by Ankara’s brokering, with Brazil, of a nuclear deal with Tehran.

The destination of the boats, Gaza, stands at risk of being overshadowed by the deadly scuffles off its coast. It is there, however, that the situation is most dire. The “Freedom Flotilla” was carrying, among other items, cement for the reconstruction of the 6,400 Palestinian homes that were razed or damaged in the winter of 2008-2009. The World Health Organization counts some 3,500 families as displaced by the bombing, more than a year later. The Israeli assault exacerbated the effects of the years-long siege, which has sent the already impoverished strip into downward spirals of human misery. In May 2008, the WHO estimates, 70 percent of families were living on less than $1 a day; 10.2 percent of Gazans were chronically malnourished; and 67 percent of young people were jobless. These numbers have certainly worsened since the data was collected, due to the bombing, and to subsequent Israeli and Egyptian crackdowns on the smuggling of goods through tunnels underneath the Gazan-Egyptian border.

What of the response of Barack Obama? The path of least resistance, sure to be greased by Congress, would be to instruct his UN envoy to spurn Turkish and other demands for Israeli accountability. With the assistance of the American media, it may not be so difficult for the White House to pretend that this naked display of unlawful violence was just a “tragedy” occurring in the heat of the moment. The media, after all, is bleating insipidly about the effects this episode may have on the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process.” Obama is likely to face little domestic pressure to put a stop to Israeli impunity and back a full and impartial investigation, though UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called for one. And having just slapped down the Turkish-Brazilian deal with Iran, Obama may be ready to do all his damage to US-Turkish ties at once. It may be harder to avoid a conversation about lifting the indefensible blockade of Gaza, which Assistant Secretary-General Oscar Fernandez-Taranco described as “counterproductive and unacceptable” before the Security Council on May 31. One thing is certain: If Obama chooses the former course and shields Israel from international scrutiny, no speech, however silver-tongued, will persuade the world that his Middle East policy is different from his predecessor’s.

International Crisis Group Media Release

2010-06-01T00:26:00.000-07:00

INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP - NEW MEDIA RELEASE
Flotilla Attack the Deadly Symptom of a Failed Policy
Brussels/Washington/Jerusalem, 31 May 2010: The International Crisis Group condemns Israel’s assault on a flotilla of humanitarian aid bound for Gaza, which resulted in a tragic loss of life.

At the same time, the incident is an indictment of a much broader policy toward Gaza for which Israel does not bear sole responsibility.

For years, many in the international community have been complicit in a policy that aimed at isolating Gaza in the hope of weakening Hamas. This policy is morally appalling and politically self-defeating. It has harmed the people of Gaza without loosening Hamas's control. Yet it has persisted regardless of evident failure.

“The flotilla assault is but a symptom of an approach that has been implicitly endorsed by many”, says Robert Malley, Director of Crisis Group’s Middle East Program. “It is yet another stark illustration of the belated need for a comprehensive change in policy toward Gaza.”

International condemnation and calls for an inquiry will come easily, but many who will issue them must acknowledge their own role in the deplorable treatment of Gaza that formed the backdrop to today’s events. The policy of isolating Gaza, seeking to turn its population against Hamas, and endorsing a "West Bank first" approach was not an exclusively Israeli one. To focus on this recent tragedy alone is to miss the much wider and more important political lessons.

The policy toward Gaza is in need of thorough re-examination. The US, EU and Quartet as a whole have been calling for relaxing the siege on Gaza. That is welcome, but opening the humanitarian tap is not an appropriate answer to a policy whose fundamental premise is morally callous and politically counter-productive. Instead, Gaza should be open to normal commercial traffic with adequate international end-use monitoring.

“Today, we have witnessed the sad outgrowth of a failed and dangerous policy”, says Louise Arbour, Crisis Group President. “One hopes it can provide an opportunity for a long-overdue course correction.”

A Suicide Israeli Commando Mission

2010-05-31T11:06:00.000-07:00

Its difficult to imagine how the Israeli decision to send a commando team to board an aid ship at night time in International waters could possibly result in a positive outcome for Israel.Considering the highly charged emotion of this humanitarian mission, an Israeli commando team armed with weapons abseiling onto a humanitarian ship at night was always going to result in a negative outcome and the high possibility of the loss of life.Imagine the scene that must have gripped the crew on board the ship as commandos abseiled onto the deck of the ship. I wonder what the commandos orders were once onboard. What was the commando teams mission ? Before these commandos left their base they would have received a complete analysis of who was on board and what to expect. Surely they did not expect the passengers to do absolutely nothing when the commandos boarded. The type of person that travels on these humanatarian ships are usually of hardy stuff and are not the type to take orders from an Israeli soldier whom they all most likely hate as the Isaeli soldier represents what they see as Israeli repression of Palestinians in Gaza. Confrontation was always a certainty. A video here shows the soldiers been attacked as they abseiled onto the ship and a descripton from an Israeli soldier of what happened.
This was the last thing the Israelis needed.It now puts further pressure on the U.S government in dealing with Israel and raises the simmering tensions in the region.
According to Marc Lynch this is a crisis-read his article here
This episode highlights the ongoing problem of blockading Gaza and Israel's policy towards Hamas.Israel is shooting itself in the foot with its Gaza policy against Hamas. Bradley Burston writing for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz sums it up nicely when he says "Here in Israel, we have still yet to learn the lesson: We are no longer defending Israel. We are now defending the siege. The siege itself is becoming Israel's Vietnam" Read his article here The paradox is that Hamas needs to do nothing to gain from Israel's policy in Gaza. Hamas has learned the ways of Hizbullah in Lebanon. Similar to the Lebanon War in 2006 where Israel tried to turn the Lebanese against Hizbullah, Israel is now trying to turn the Palestinians in Gaza and the International Community against Hamas. It has'nt worked in Lebanon and it won't work in Gaza either. If anything Israel has turned the International Community against itself indicated by demonstrations against Israel already underway and likely to continue. There is an increase in Jewish dissagreement in Israel and in the Jewish communinity in the U.S. such as J Street which is opposed to the blockade against Israeli policy and actions against the Palestinians and settlements.The blockade has likely contributed to the rise of more radical groups than Hamas in Gaza and an increased Islamization of Palestinian society within Gaza. Hamas is stronger as a result of the Israeli blockade-as Yossi Yelman an analyst writing for Haaretz believes.Read his analysis here.The commando attack will be seen by the International community as a reckless and dissproportianate level of Israel military behaviour even if the commandos had to defend themselves on boarding the ship. It also may not reflect well in justifying Israel's defence in not using dissproportionate force in the Gaza war. While those on board the ship possibly did attack the Israeli commandos with weapons and may have been prepared for such an attack the assault was always going to end badly for Israel.
Much of the Arabic media is refering to the incident as Israeli state terrorism and similar to piracy.

IRCHSS Scholarship

2010-05-24T09:52:00.000-07:00

I failed to receive the scholarship from the government funded Irish Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences. There were 690 applications with funding for 90 scholarships. I was dissapointed but will get some feedback in September on my application which will be beneficial. I have also applied for another scholarship with only two been accepted.As University College Cork does not have a link with Birzeit University in Ramallah I will have to pay for courses in the West Bank next year. Each course is between $550 and $650.I hope to do a number of social science courses and a Palestinian Arabic courses while doing research.I will also have accomodation, travelling expenses etc. plus UCC student fees of approx 6000 euros for the year.This is frustrating as I won't be at the university for the year and will be working with a mentor at Birzeit.For this reason I may contemplate postpoing my phd for a year and just go and do my research anyway.I can re-enter the program when I return although I will have to still do the 2 years which suits me fine as I feel I can benefit from the extra year and would be very happy if I could finish the phd in 4 years.Expenses will be less also when I return home and after a year in the West Bank I should have an increased chance of getting some funding.Whatever happens-its all good.

2010-05-24T09:32:00.000-07:00

Al Jazeera Every year, Arabs around the world commemorate al-Nakba or "the catastrophe" on May 15 - the day following Israel's declaration of statehood in 1948.

But poems and speeches are now too embarrassing to recite and Arab governments barely seem interested in remembering - so busy are they trying to win Israel's approval for direct or indirect negotiations.

While in the past, Arab governments spent money combating Zionist propaganda, last year, the Arab League - with Saudi funding - purchased advertisements in Western newspapers with the aim of convincing Israel that Arab governments are, in fact, eager to make peace and normalise relations.

The Palestinian scene is not that different.

The symbols of Palestinian nationalism have suddenly changed. As far as the Palestinian Authority (PA) is concerned, revolutionaries belong in museums and the kufiyyah and musakkhan (a traditional Palestinian dish) are celebrated as the only elements of the rich tapestry of Palestinian national identity.

And with Mahmoud Abbas, the PA president, becoming increasingly insignificant, while Mohammed Dahlan remains an unacceptable prospect as Palestinian leader, Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister, has become the new darling of the West.

The Western press has, accordingly, produced an unending supply of laudatory and fawning pieces about the leadership of the man who - along with his partner Hanan Ahsrawi, who still thinks she can have it both ways, talking against corruption while aligning herself with the corrupt regime of Ramallah - did not receive more than two per cent of the support of the Palestinian people in the last legislative elections-under-occupation.

Fayyad has essentially been selected by the West and all sorts of aid and favourable press have subsequently come his way.

In fact, the Palestinian people had more freedom to choose their own leaders in the 1930s than they do now - although, of course, when the British did not like the Palestinian choice, as was the case with Muhammed Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, they simply expelled them.

Abandoned by Arab regimes

While similar images appear at each commemoration of al-Nakba - Palestinians holding keys to houses they were expelled from and deeds to lands that are now occupied - the reality is that Arab regimes washed their hands of the Palestinian struggle long ago.
Anwar al-Sadat, the Egyptian president who signed an historic peace deal with Israel, set a new path for Arab regimes and they all now follow in his footsteps.

But al-Nakba is never forgotten in the refugee camps; the squalid places intended as a burial ground for the Palestinian cause have instead been transformed into repositories of memory and revolution.

Year after year, the Palestinians in the camps celebrate their anger and their defiance.

But with each commemoration of al-Nakba the need to assess the balance sheet of the historical conflict between armed struggle and diplomacy grows more urgent.

Gunslinger diplomacy

Armed struggle was responsible for bringing the Palestinian cause to the attention of the world; before which it was possible for a UN resolution on the Palestinian "problem" to pass without making reference to the Palestinian people.

It delivered the Palestinian people from a time when their very status and identity was denied to a time when the UN had to recognise the fruits of Palestinian self-determination.

Let us not forget that more countries recognised the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) than recognised Israel, until the Oslo process changed the picture.

Armed struggle also unified the Palestinian people under one umbrella and generated Arab support; PLO military operations inside Israel often featured Arabs from across the region.

It was also armed struggle that forced Arab governments to surrender control of the Palestinian national movement.

Gamal Abdel Nasser, the former Egyptian president who is now remembered as a champion of the Palestinian cause, formed the PLO with the aim of controlling Palestinian activism and ensuring that the armed struggle remained under the watchful gaze of Arab regimes.

Palestinian armed struggle also served to break down the traditional barriers of religious conservatism that kept Palestinian women from participating fully in the political struggle - although, of course, all Palestinian organisations were guilty of marginalising women despite the sacrifices and contributions they made to all forms of struggle.

It also instilled a sense of pride among Palestinians and put an end to the sense of despair that prevailed in the wake of al-Nakba. Such feelings of helplessness were fueled by Arab regimes which feared the consequences of Palestinian revolutionary spirit.

Ink-and-paper diplomacy

The path of diplomacy pursued by Yasser Arafat, the late PLO leader, and his successors has thus far resulted in the establishment of a weak and dependent authority in Ramallah which operates at the discretion of Israel and its Western allies.

Protecting Israel from legitimate Palestinian armed struggle is now the responsibility of a PA which ultimately answers to its enemies and the successes and failures of its diplomacy are set according to criteria established by Israel.

Furthermore, if armed struggle charted a course that began to push for the independence of the Palestinian national movement from Arab regimes, the Palestinian diplomatic clique has put the affairs of Palestinians in the hands of the US - Israel's chief patron and "eternal ally".

This diplomatic course has created the deepest divisions among Palestinians since the 1930s and has, thus far, resulted in nothing tangible.

The path of diplomacy has been imposed upon Palestinians from the outside, whether by Arab regimes, the US or other friends of Israel.

But while the Palestinian scene may look bleak 62 years after al-Nakba, even with the suspension of the Palestinian armed struggle Israel's longevity has never been more in doubt.

It always believed that Lebanon would be a safe and secure neighbour, but now Israel's most formidable enemy sits on its northern border. And its arsenal of nuclear and biological weapons will not save it from the bleak future Zionism sealed when the state was created.

The apartheid regime of South Africa once looked formidable, but that has now been assigned to the history books.

The West does'nt want a democratic Middle East

2010-05-24T07:39:00.001-07:00

Here's a good article on the West's foreign policy in the Middle East

My Progress so far

2010-04-28T13:33:00.000-07:00

I finished the five modules I was attending at University College Cork at the end of March. They included Research skills and Digital Research Management and Editing Skills. The lectures were very beneficial. Six modudles are only required in addition to the thesis so I have only one more module to do.I am currently completing a number of assignments to gain the 5 credits for each module. One of them is a mock interview. I have registered an abstract for the phd showcase on 2 June in which I will give an oral presentation at UCC on my phd subject "Islamism and Nationalism in the Palestinian territories" I will also submit a written paper of 2,000 words which has the possibility of been inclcuded in the first UCC graduate academic journal been lauched at UCC later in the year. The aim of this showcase is to give phd students an opportunity to explain our research topic to a non-specialized audience.
I met my supervisor Oliver last Thursday and we discussed the content of my first chapter.I will meet him again on 27 May and must have something written for him by then.So over the next few weeks I will be writing a review on the existing literature on Islamism and Nationalism in the Palestinian Territories.Palestinian Identity after the Ottoman Empire and the formation of both Palestinian and Arab Nationalism.The background of Islamism in the Middle East, The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and its influence in the Middle East and on the rise of Islamism and Hamas in the Palestinian Territories,I will also look at Palestinian Islamist National Identity and the conflicting Ideologies within the Palestinian territories stressing that the thesis will cover these questions.I will also write a section on the methodology of my research.

2010-04-13T06:14:00.000-07:00

Political Islam and Pragmatic Players by Donncha Cuttriss

They just don´t get it with Syria

2010-03-26T13:54:00.000-07:00

If you have been reading some of my comments on U.S. American policy towards Syria here is a great article by Michael J.Totten. In it John Kerry said he believes Syria’s president, Bashar Assad, “understands that his country’s long-term interests … are not well served by aligning Syria with a revolutionary Shiite regime in Iran and its terrorist clients.” Robert Ford, Obama´s pick for ambassador for Syria, at the same time, said the U.S. “must persuade Syria that neither Iran nor Hezbollah shares Syria’s long-term strategic interest in peace.
These statements are similar to a statement made by Johanaton Stevenson Professor of the U.S. Naval War College and Steven Simon in January about persuading Hizbullah that its interests lay in disarming. See my post on that dismal analysis here.The incredibility about all these statements is how Kerry, Ford, Stevenson and Simon all seem to know what is in the best interest of Syria and Hizbullah as if Syria and Hizbullah are not quite sure of their interests and how to best implement a policy that looks after their interests. Lets make this clear-Syria and Hizbullah know exactly what they are doing,they know what and where their interests lay and it is certainly not in distancing themselves from their allies. A regional peace without tension is not in Syria´s interest.The Syrian regime survives on its ability to create instabilty and its abilty to be seen as a key actor in the region.Oherwise it has no leverage and in a repressive regime one needs to be able to use cards that it can play when needed(it has to be at least perceived that it has cards it can play which is also effective). Stability in the region could lead to some sort of realization within Syria and maybe even calls for democracy god forbid-That is the last thing Asad wants.The U.S. policy of engaging Syria while it supresses any notion of democracy within its own country is a continuing trend of the U.S. engaging with repressive regimes(Egypt and Saudi Arabia also).This policy paradoxically undermines the moderate Islamist movements who are the most powerful actors who are pushing for democratic change within these regimes and who accept the concept of pluralism, the exchange of power, and they also form cross ideological alliances in many countries which is a moderating factor also.Many of these movements are also either banned such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or operate abroad like the Syrian oppostion party.The U.S. policy of supporting and engaging repressive regimes also lets these regimes leaders see that they can get away with their repressive measures and that the U.S. is soft.It also leads to the radical forces within these moderate Islamist movements to becoming frustrated with partaking in politics due to the U.S. previous policy of announcing its desire to promote democracy in the Middle East but in practice undermining the very policy it advertises. The Middle East is perhaps the only area which has not made any significant progress towards any country reaching a somewhat full democracy. U.S. foreign policy toward Syria and U.S.analysis as mentinoed above do not help!

Assad makes it clear !

2010-03-24T11:39:00.000-07:00

The President of Syria Bashar al Asad was quoted in the media today here stating "The price of Resistance is less than the price of chaos" (the kind of Syrian induced chaos I alluded to in my post yesterday) and "Syria cannot be neutral to a party that opposes the Resistance". Don´t doubt Syria´s and Hizbullah´s true intentions-A Lebanon that is united resolutely behind the Resistance. And if not,the result as Asad himself said would be chaos.

When Syria and Hizbullah don´t get their way !

2010-03-23T13:02:00.000-07:00

Hanin Ghaddar has written a great article a few days ago on the waning influence of the March 14th coalition in Lebanon here.It may not be dead yet with the Lebanese Forces leader Samir Gea Gea and PM Sa´id Hariri holding firm but the grip is been tightened by both Syria and Hizbullah.The president Michel Suleiman has been criticised by all sides due to his efforts to play a consensus president and refusal to play by the game of confessional politics in Lebanon. Syria and Hizbullah nearly have Lebanon singing on their hymn sheet but not quiet yet.When Syria has not got it´s way in the past it has been prepared to inflict instability on Lebanon through its proxies in many ways-assasinations and bombings in confessional districts,bombing of UNIFIL troops etc. while Hizbullah which also benefits condemns and remains silent.It has been quiet for some time in Lebanon but considering the current political climate it may not remain so for too long.

Any Dialogue with Hizbullah is Futile by Elias Bejjani

2010-03-16T03:06:00.000-07:00

Here is a good article.
Bejjani refers to Hizbullah as an "Iranian Shite terrorist milita" yet many in Lebanon, the Middle East and Western analysts regard Hizbullah as a moderate Islamist movement which is more democratic than other groups in Lebanon. Is Hizbullah a terrorist militia organization as regarded by the U.S. or a moderate Lebanese Islamist political movement? What is your opinion?

Meeting with Supervisor

2010-03-10T12:47:00.000-08:00

Met my supervisor today Oliver which went fine. Im going to start on forming an outline for my first introductory chaper for my thesis. I am required to have approx 10,000 words done for the first year which will also be assessed along with an interview to get upgraded on the phd course before I travel to the West Bank in January.I hope to have a draft done by September. In my introductory chapter I will be basically setting the scene on political Islam in general in the Middle East,the background to Islamism in the M.E. pan-Arabism and Nationalism in Palestine. I will review the literature on the movements and trends which emerged in Palestine in both the Islamist and secular spheres and how they developed to the current ideological trends today. This will give me a good appreciation of the background and an intimate knowledge of the issues before I travel to the West Bank.

The March 14th Lame Duck or maybe not !

2010-03-09T11:35:00.000-08:00

The National Dialogue talks in Lebanon are to begin soon. The main issue on the agenda of course you would think is the issue of Hizbullah's weapons and a National Defence Strategy. In an indication of how talks will procede in relation to Hizbullah's weapons Hizbullah's Minister of State for Administrative Reform Mohammed Fneish said here that his party's weapons would not be "a subject for discussion" during dialogue sessions. MP Hassan Fadallah also said here that discussing the resistance's arsenal or the resistance itself during National Dialogue sessions is out of the question. Instead the dialogue he said is about benefitting from the resistance. So much for the much talked about theory of the Lebanonization of Hizbullah. In fact what the National Dialogue talks may likely represent is the final piece in the jigsaw in the Hizbullahization of Lebanon. The irony of it is that while many might presume that this is a disaster for the March 14th it in reality is the only and best option for March 14th considering its precarious position. The shrewd chameleon Walid Jumblatt certainly believes he is better off on Hizbullah's side. At the height of the Cedar revolution in 2005 the March 14th coalition was backed by the U.S. in its mission to sow the seeds of democracy in the Middle East. Indeed many seen Lebanon as the possible shining example of democracy in the Middle East.As a result March 14th(not unlike Fatah in the West Bank in its struggle with Hamas)was able to take a firm stand against Hizbullah confident it had the support of the U.S. During the 2006 Lebanon war many in the March 14th coalition undoubtedly hoped for Hizbullah's destruction as did many in the U.S. signified by Condeleeza Rice's efforts to extend the conflict in what she called "the birth pangs of a new Middle East". Hizbullah was'nt defeated and the March 14th coaltion was left deserted by the U.S. to pick up the pieces. The U.S. and many analysts looked at the May elections last year as a defeat for Hizbullah but the reality was that although they may have lost the count in votes the result did'nt signify what really mattered. Hizbullah won in the areas it fielded candidates and it still controlled the country. The weakness of March 14th was personafied by the visit of Said Hariri to Damascus recently practically confirming Syria's influence over Lebanon.Considering Hizbullah is in control of everything it needs to be in control of in Lebanon, the recent threats between Israeli and Hizbullah and the tension in the region Hizbullah is in a further strengthened postition heading into the National Dialogue talks.More importantly though is that the March 14th is in an extremely weak and vulnerable positon. Take into account Nasrallah's recent meeting with Asad and the Iranian/Syrian meeting and the National Dialogue talks may be the perfect place where the March 14th lame duck realizes(it probably already does) that its better off hedging its bets with Hizbullah, Iran and Syria than with an inconsistent pro-Western United States.Therefore a National Defence Strategy which accepts the incorporation of the resistance is a likely scenario which the March 14th alliance may accept if it can attain some gaurantees in relation to Hizbullah's military decision making. Hizbullah is not going to disarm anyway and it does provide the only deterrant towards Israel as the Lebanese see it. However,although this is a possible scenario it would be a long time before it would actually come into affect considering the lengthy time for anything to actually happen in Lebanon. The U.S. move to bring Syria in from the cold does nothing to help matters of course and one wonders will analysts who are advising Obama ever get it with Syria.
Hanin Ghaddar has written a great article a few days ago on the waning influence of the March 14th coalition in Lebanon here It may not be dead yet with the Lebanese Forces leader Samir Gea Geas and PM Sa´id Hariri holding firm but the grip is been tightened by both Syria and Hizbullah.The president Michel Suleiman has been criticised by all sides due to his efforts to play a consensus president and refusal to play by the game of confessional politics in Lebanon. Syria and Hizbullah nearly have Lebanon singing on their hymn sheet but not quiet yet.When Syria has not gotten it´s way in the past it has been prepared to cause instability in Lebanon through its proxies in many ways-through assasinations and bombings in confessional districts. It has been quiet for some time in Lebanon but considering the current political climate it may not remain so for too long.

The Benefits of Networking

2010-03-09T10:29:00.001-08:00

I finished my literary review of just over 3000 words on Islamist movements in the Middle East and Hamas and sent it to my supervisor Oliver at University College Cork. I will meet him tommorrow and discuss it and other topics. I don't think it's great but we will see tommorrow. Im writing an article now for MEPEI- Middle East Political and Economic Institute which is the first Romanian NGO proividing interviews, articles and reports for Romanian and Eurpean institutions, academia, civil society and political groups. I was asked to write it by Manuela Paraipan who is the co-founder of MEPEI. We have similar research interests and we got in touch through networking. I believe its important to be continually writing while undertaking research as it offers a focus to get ideas down on paper regularly.I have spent a lot of time reading in the past and still do but I try now to read with purpose. This is because most of what I read I don't remember. With this in mind i now read with the purpose of making it productive. I prefer to be reading with an aim to actually writing an article or a review of the literature in a certain area. This helps me to focus on the content much more in a critical way. Writing is an area in which I am hoping to improve greatly and writing an article other than for my supervisor certainly provides an incentive. I also met a Lebanese guy whom I will meet during the week who has been reading my blog. He is keen to talk about Lebanese politics as most Lebanese are and so I look forward to the opportunity to be able to engage with somebody on Lebanese politics. One of the problems with studying at UCC is that it is not in the Middle East and it is difficult to discuss ones ideas on a regular basis with fellow graduates in the area I am studying. In Lebanon, the Palestinian territories or Israel I could hang out with people who talk politics for many hours. I am the first and only phd student in my department and its difficult to find someone to discuss and listen to on Islamism and Nationalism in Palestine. Im looking forward to travelling to the West Bank next year when I will be surrounded by the issues and will be able to see and interact within Palestinian society.I was in touch with Berzeit University near Ramallah in the West Bank where I will be studying and they will happily provide me with a mentor.It will also be a great to finally have an opportunity to use and improve my Arabic in an Arabic language institute something which i have been continually trying to do since I began studying Arabic 18 years ago with a linguaphone course in Lebanon. In Berzeit University I will have the opportunity to do social science courses in Arabic with Palestinian students while also carrying out research.

Islamist Movements in the Middle East

2010-03-07T16:39:00.001-08:00

Ive been working on this topic over the last week and have been writing it up today.I still have a bit to do but hopefully I will get it finished tommorrow night as I must send it to Oliver my German supervisor at UCC so he can review it before I meet him Wednesday.
So Islamist movements in the M.E. are a diverse bunch of movements,parties,societies etc. Some are banned offically such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt but still manage to participte as independents and others are more or less accepted as long as they don't overstep themselves which often results in a dissolution of parliament and possibly crackdowns against the movement.The Islamist Constitutional Movement in Kuwait(known as HADAS which is an acronym for its name in Arabic)or the Muslim Brotherhood in Kuwait does'nt exist in the legal sense so HADAS functions legally as the Social Reform society.Movements such as the MB in Egypt,Hadas in Kuwait, the Justice and Development party in Morocco,al Wefaq in Bahrain, Yemen's Islamist Congregation for reform and the Islamist Action Front in Jordan are all mainstream Islamist movements in the Middle East which have eschewed violence and accept the democratic process in their countries.In fact,in a region fraught with repressive regimes it is these moderate mainstream Islamist movements which are championing democracy and pushing for reforms which lead to increased liberalization. In a region which is typically traditional and values are important secular parties are finidng it difficult to create significant political space for themselves.Islamist movements with their grassroots support,community and charitable networks and mosques are at distinct advantage.Mainstream Islamist parties or reformist parties participate in elections mostly in opposition and often form cross-ideological partnerships which in turn can have a secularizing effect on the Islamists in politics. They are however wary of performing too well knowing the possibility of a harsh response from the regime in the form of the ususal arrests etc. as was the case when the MB in Egypt won 88 seats in the parliament in 2005 winning 20 percent of the votes. Ayman Nour who finished second was subsequently imprisoned as were many more and a spate of laws and constitutional changes were made to marginalize the MB in the future. Listen to this video for a recent account in Calafornia by Ibrahim Houdaiby a young MB activist.
There are no legal political parties in Oman or an active opposition movement. Syria is as repressive as they come where any attempt to show open signs of political activity are strenuously dealt with in the usual form of arrests and imprisonment. Tunisia mainly represented by the Al Nahada movement has also refused to leagalize any Islamist movements and leaders have either been imprisoned tortured or forced into exile.
While these mainstream Islamist movements are pushing for their governments to implement reforms that pushes their countries towards democratization they are frustrated by the fact the the U.S. supports these incumbent regimes for its short term security benefits and its interests in the region. The reality of the contradictory U.S. plan of democracy promotion in the Middle East is clear to see from the Islamists side.
It is important to note that while the mainstream Islamists are pushing for liberalization in the political sphere they draw a line when it leads in a cultural direction. How the Islamists deal with democracy and the implementation of sharia law. It is the balance that the Islamists maintain between their push for liberalization and to what extent they maintain the values and traditions of society which determines the ebb and flow of their support.In the end its a trade-off. Critics are certainly wary of Islamist movements and an agenda of working towards the Islamization of society and what their policies would be in power in regard to human rights, womens rights, minorities etc. These are what Ottaway and Aliboni refer to as gray zones and it is this tension between the Islamist and the democratic view that has not been resloved completely by any one party or movement.
Other Islamist movements which are in a different category are Hizbullah and Hamas which both have a military capacity which can be used as a politcal tool to their advantage. How to categorize these movements is an issue that would generate much debate depending on who you ask. They both participate in the politics of their governements although Hamas which won the elections in 2006 is a defacto government in Gaza and does not represent the Palestinian people as a whole and is not recognised by the International community. There are hardliners and moderates in all Islamist movements which lead to internal disputes as they react to the changing politcal dynamics in their country. The actions of repressive regimes can lead the movement to either radicalize or moderate depending on the specific dynamics within the country. Hamas in addition is affected by its struggle with Israel and the boycott and international isolation of Hamas since 2006 has undoubedly led to a frenzy of internal debate amongst Hamas memebers on their future strategy. With the Islamization of the Palestinian struggle for nationhood in the first Intifada Hamas support oscillates in tangent with this struggle as does support for the more secular Fatah. Unlike the repression of most other Islamist movments in the Middle East Hizbullah is the one group in Lebanon that is repressive when it needs to be. Although it functions as part of a system of consensus democracy it does not hesitate to flex its muscles if need be.
Islamist movements and parties in the Middle East will continue to be the largest opposition groups for the foreseeble future. Any liberalization inroads may certainly lead to increased gains for the Islamists but this is a gradual process that will be slow in coming.

The Palestinian Left

2010-03-04T17:18:00.001-08:00

I attended the Palestinian Society conference in the School of Oriental and African Studies SOAS last weekend Saturday and Sunday.It was my first conference and I really enjoyed it.There were speakers who gave talks on many diverse areas including,The Palestinian Left in Israel,The Israel Anti-Zionist left, The left of the PLO: The West Bank and Gaza, The left of the PLO in exile, The Palestinian left in literature. A number of speakers from the Palestinian territories and Israel gave their personal accounts of their experieces in political parties over the last five decades including the communinst party,socialist parties and the many various secular parties.I learned so much in the two days and taped all the talks of which I hope to re-listen to and transribe the juicy bits.Unexpectently I found the talks on Palestinian literature to be specifically compelling including the life story of the famous cartoonist Naj al Ali
Here are some websites from which people spoke at the conference. Matzpen AAW Im currently preparing to write a literary review for my supervisor on Islamist movements in the Middle East and Hamas in the context of Palestine.

UCC Debate - Azzam Tamimi "I only want my rights, Hang me if I deserve to be hanged"

2010-02-18T11:28:00.000-08:00

I attended a debate yesterday evening hosted by the Law society at University College Cork entitled "Islam is not a threat to the West".The three speakers were Azzam Tamimi for the motion,Ruth Dudley Edwards against the motion and Karen Coleman gave a neutral opinion. Dr Azzam Tamimi who is Palestinian is the founder of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought in London. He is a Hamas supporter and author of a number of books on Hamas, Islamism and democracy.Ruth Dudley Edwards is an Irish historian, journalist and broadcaster and Karen Coleman is also a journalist who has reported from Bosnia,Iraq and Gaza.Azzam Tamimi spoke first commemorating the first days of Islam and Mohammed in the 7th century saying that Islam offered a sense of direction to people especially the women,the poor and the slaves of that time.It was he said "a message and a mission of emancipation".One of the main tenets of Islam he mentioned is that Islam cannot be imposed by force "There is no compulsion in religion" - "People are free to choose" he said. One of Tamimi's main messages was that Islam today is perceived as a threat for political reasons stressing that Islam is perceived as a threat because people know very little about Islam and only believe what they hear in the media. The Muslims in many parts of the world today are in turmoil and are backward but it is not because of Islam. Due to imperalism and colonialism Tamimi told the audience that Muslims were inspired by Nationalsim and then Islamism. Islam he said was an inspiration to those who were oppressed as is the case today to those who are occupied.As expected he switched to the Palestinian issue asking is the problem in Palestine due to Islam or because Europe could not solve its problems and created an Israeli state at the expense of others.He said that it is due to feelings of oppression and grieviances within societies that has led to the problems we have today and has nothing to do with religion. Islam he claimed can contribute to the West and societies. Dr. Tamimi concluded by saying that one needs to read more about Islam to be fair to Islam before you judge it.

Ruth Dudley Edwards began by stating that she does not believe Islam is a threat to the West but it is been turned into a threat to the West by radical preachers of which she included Dr. Tamimi. She mentioned his past radical speeches, one in particular at Trafalgar square along with George Galloway in which she said he called for the eradication of Israel. She said that ordinary Muslims around the world are very badly served by the radicals.She said that Dr. Tamimi was a prominent member of the Muslim Brotherhood who wish to subjigate the entire world into an Islamic caliphate.She went on to talk about Sharia law mentioning that the tolerant European Court for human rights ruled that sharia law was incompatible with the human rights convention. She said women under sharia law were half the worth of men,the testimony of a woman in court is only worth half the testimony of a man and a man can have four wives, a man can divorce at will where a woman has to go through the sharia courts. She said under Sharia law the penalty for adultery is for the woman to be stoned to death and in places such as Saudi Arabia women have no choice in the choice of dress and have to wear the Burka.Gays are thrown off cliffs and have been hanged in Iran from cranes she said.Ruth Dudley Edwards said that free speech is not a part of Sharia law mentioning Salman Rushdie and the Danish Cartoons. While indicating that Dr. Tamimi said there was no compulsion in religion,she said that the penalty for leaving Islam is death.She said that the Clonskeagh mosque in Dublin is the headquarters for the European Council for Fatwa and Research and its chief Yusuf Qaradawi is a friend of Dr. Tamimi and the Global leader of the Muslim Brotherood of which his headquarters is in Clonskeagh,Dublin. She said he led the protests of the Danish cartoons calling for a global day of anger and believes that beating one's wife lightly is ok.She said that a lot of her Muslim friends in Britain are frightened about what to do in standing up to the "preachers of hate" and it is important to not be taken in by Dr. Tamimi. Mrs Dudley Edwards finished by stating that because of people like Dr. Tamimi Islam is becoming a threat to the West.

Karen Coleman began by saying that there is an argument to say Isalm is a threat and Islam is not a threat to the West. What was different about Mrs.Coleman's speech was that she also gave considerable time to focusing on Christianity and how it can be a threat to society mentioning "the disgraceful legacy of the Catholic church" in Ireland and what "dreadful people were doing in the Vatican over the last couple of days" She said in regards to Sharia law our own religion in Ireland was not much better. She said we should take a good luck of ourselves mentioning that the Catholic church has destroyed thousands of lives and that "Christianity has not exactly been good for global peace". She believes in secular states and that religion should be a private matter which would lead to a more peace and stability in the world. Islam as she saw it was not a threat to world as a religion but radical Islam is a threat to the west and current attacks by suicide bombers are mostly been carried out by Muslims on fellow Muslims and more Muslims are killing Muslims than Westerners.Radical christianity she said is also a threat. She spoke about Sarah Palin and that she would consider her to be a threat to the West if she was Vice President and that George Bush was a threat to the West and to the World in general of which we are still seeing the ramificaitons.She believed that Britain has been very tolerant in allowing radical Muslims to operate within Britain and said that she believes that Hamas in the Gaza Strip has done itself and the Palestinians no favours when it kept launching rockets into places like Sederot knowing that Israel would eventually, as it said it would, respond harshly. She went on to talk about the brutal traditions of honour killings in Muslim societies.One of the reasons Karen Coleman said she took a neutral position was because she believes that U.S. ongoing support for Israel has led to supporters of the Palestinian cause to become more extreme.

Azzam Tamimi in answering a question expressed his hurt at the personal attack from Ruth Dudley Edwards regarding "the pack of lies" about him and other aspects of her talk. He stood up and began a passionate rant on the Hamas/Israeli conflict claiming it was Israel who violated the truce re-iterating that the Israeli's admitted it themselves.He mentioned how his mother and her parents and children were thrown out of their house, the massacre of Dar Yasin and how Jews from all over the world came and took his mother's house and father's land and "by what right". And when he fights back he is a terrorist and a criminal.He said "I only want my rights,Like Mandela I am a freedom fighter,I am fighting for my people's rights,for my nations generation".
He said Sheikh Qaradawi was the leader of Islamic democracy in the world and a defender of human rights. He finished by urging us to look for the truth and his passionate plea got a loud round of applause as did the other speakers.

In reply Ruth Dudley Edwards answered in response to Mr.Tamimi feeling hurt that he was in a debate and should be prepared to take some criticism and grow up.A tough debater no doubt but I wondered her ability to appreciate Tamimi's position as a Palestinian who cannot return to his own home(whatever her opinion in regard to his views) whilst Ethiopian Jews have emigraged Israel.

My Analysis
In listening to Azzam Tamimi's passionate speech a recurring theme which had been tantalizing my thoughts during the previous weeks again resurfaced. What I conceptualized was that the Nakba or disaster of 1948 (as the Palestinians refer to it)seems to be still a resounding calamity for many Palestinians(as clearly expressed by Tamimi)and until the Palestinian's themselves can collectively deal with the reality of their loss and the existence of the Israeli state(however unfair and unjust)it will continually be extremely difficult for the Palestinians to conceptually move forward towards peace. The question then is-What do the Palestinians want? Despite what Tamimi says about Islam not been a threat to the West (which I believe to be true when talking about Islam purely as a religon) Islam has been used by Hamas and Islamic symbols at the very least have been used by its rival Fatah to gain Palestinian support in its struggle for support and a Palestinian state. Islam is not a problem in many country's where Islam is predominant.Examples are Malaysia where Islam is the official religion and sixty percent of the population are Muslim, The self declared Kosovo Republic as mentioned in a previous post is another example where the Kosovan Albanians are ninety percent Muslim.Albania is eighty percent Muslim and a parliamentary republic. That is not to say Islam is not a problem in country's where there is Islam but again it is not the religion per se but in a region like the Middle and many parts of Asia where there is instability Islam can be used as a tool to recruit passionate Muslims who as Tamimi says are inspired by Islam's message especially when this message is often interpreted to suit political ends by various radical Islamists.

Meeting with Supervisor and London Conference

2010-02-12T08:45:00.000-08:00

Met my supervisor Oliver today which went very well.He was very happy with my book review and is going to try and get a journal to publish it.So I cannot post it due to copyright.Im going to the Palestinian Society conference at the School for Oriental and African Studies on 27/28 Feb.It will be a great opportunity to meet with academics there.There will be a speaker from Berzeit University near Ramallah where I will be studying next year.

Islam in Kosovo

2010-02-06T15:16:00.000-08:00

In studying moderate and radical Islamic movements and the extent of the role the religion of Islam plays in different societies I am brought back to the time I spent in Kosovo a few years ago. During the six months I spent in Kosovo I carried out research on Islam in Kosovo for a presentation I was to give at the university of Westiminster,London. What intrigued me about Kosovo was the fact that although 90 percent of the Kosovo Albanian population were Muslims one would not think so by observing the day to day life in Kosovo.Indeed it would be difficult to find any manifestations of Muslim piety from Kosovan Albanians who themselves form over 90 percent of the population of Kosovo whether it be the wearing of the hijab or abaya by women,the advertisement of Islamic banners and symbols or a percentage of bearded men typically associated with many Muslim societies particulary in the Middle East and Asia. The Kosovan capital Pristina looks like a typcial European capital although maybe somewhat poorer than most. Although Kosovo then does not look typically Muslim per se that's not to say people are not practicing Muslims. The number of mosques in Kosovo is significant with a mosque located in nearly all small towns and villages. That said, attendance is low and in one mosque I attended in the town of Lipyan for Friday prayers(population of 76,000 with over 80% Kosovan Albanians)no more than a a dozen men and one woman attended. A poll commissioned by NATO led Kosovo forces (KFOR) found that Kosovan Albanians are moderately religious and only 5.8 percent answered that they prayed regularly during the day. Unlike mosques in say the Middle East where in general the Imam of a mosque is an eldery well versed scholar Imam's in Kosovo can often be quite young due to the lack of qualified experts for all mosques in towns and villages.
Islamic fundamentalism although existing in Kosovo in places like Prizen is relatively small in Kosovo and there have been stories of Iranians paying women to wear the hijab and read the Koran. Saudi Arabia and UAE has funded the building of a number of mosques throughout Kosovo(especially after the war)and a number of organizations with dubious backgrounds including the Saudi Joint Relief Commitee, the World Association of Muslim Youth and the Islamic Red Crescent have offices in Pristina.
However,whatever attempts there have been to radicalize Islam in Kosovo have not come to much and a number of Imams have expressed their uncomfortability and unacceptance of any radical expressions in their parishes.
Islam in Kosovo has neither been a major factor in the war which was mainly an ethnic conflict betwen Kosovon Albanians and Kosovan Serbs.
For more on Moderate Islam in Kosovo here's a good article by Michael J. Totten and here's a a report by ICG on Religion in Kosovo.

Democracy in the Middle East

2010-02-03T13:48:00.000-08:00

Here's a good article by Larry Diamond on the reasons for the lack of democracy in the Middle East. And here's a new book "The Struggle over Democracy in the Middle East" released recently which provides a great insight into democracy promotion in the ME and various country studies including Egypt,Jordan,Lebanon and Turkey.

Book Review

2010-02-03T11:06:00.000-08:00

I am currently reviewing a book,Its called "Identity and Religion in Palestine" - The struggle between Islamism and secularism in the Occupied Territories. It was written by Loren D. Lybarger who spent many years working in the Palestinian territories both in Gaza and the West Bank. The book relates closely to my research.I will be submitting a review of this book to my supervisor for next week and will post some of my opinions including some analysis and questions on the current struggle between Islamism and Nationalism in the Palestinian territories.

Hizbullah is not the IRA

2010-02-02T12:06:00.000-08:00

If you read my post on the disarming of Hizbullah last week here's a similar analysis in a great article today by Tony Badran who is a Lebanese research fellow and author based in Washington D.C.

Hamas does security for Israel

2010-01-31T05:41:00.000-08:00

Gaza and the Palestinian refugee camp Ain al Hilweh on the outskirts of Sidon in Lebanon have a lot in common.Both are home to Hamas, Fatah and a number of Salafi-Jihadist groups with an Al-Qaeeda type Ideology. A report this month by the Washington Institute for Near East policy discusses the emergence of these Salafi-Jihadist groups in Gaza. After the recent Osama bin Laden tape entitled "A call for Jihad to stop the agression on Gaza" these groups could play a role in the evolvement of radical Islamist Ideology in Gaza and influence the future of Gaza and Palestinian politics. These groups who claim to be part of Al-Qaeeda's global network may be inspired by bin Laden's latest recording to carry out attacks against Israel. As the situation in Gaza deteriorates and Palestinians become increasingly frustrated these Jihadist groups could gain Gazans support especially at a time when the radical Hamas isnt carrying out any attacks due to the fact it has taken on itself to govern Gaza and due to Israel's deterrent factor. As Hamas behaves moderately it may inadvertly empower the Jihadists who will fill the space left by Hamas. Ironically it is Hamas who is trying to stop the Jihadists from launching rockets at Israel. Therefore Israel through the deterrent it set after Operation Cast Lead has Hamas protecting Israeli's.

When Yemen meets Gaza

2010-01-30T08:19:00.000-08:00

Heres a good article by Mattew Levitt

Disarming Hizbullah Foreign Affairs Magazine

2010-01-24T10:28:00.000-08:00

As a subscriber to Foreign Affaris magazine I was amazed in reading a recent article in the magazine postulating the possibility of the U.S. engaging Hizbullah with an aim to disarming it. The article was written by Jonathan Stevenson who is Professor of Strategic Studies at the Naval War College in the U.S. and and Seven Simon who is Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations. Stevenson has spent many years in Northern Ireland as a journalist on which he has written a book.
The article attempts to compare the decommissioning of the IRA with the possibility of disarming Hizbullah. What is incredibly clear from the article is that neither Stevenson or Simon have a comprehension of Hizbullah and its complexities.Practically everything written about Hizbullah is simply wrong or completely misunderstood in the context of the Middle East.

Take this paragraph from the Foreign Affaris magazine "Hezbollah, like the IRA 15 years ago, may be ready to shift more decisively into the political realm: a 2009 RAND study concluded that Hezbollah was distancing itself from Iranian patronage in order to increase its domestic legitimacy among parties that have viewed it as Tehran's lackey. And while the Hezbollah bloc did retain strong support in the June elections, taking 57 of 128 parliamentary seats, it lost out to Hariri's Western-backed coalition. Some of Hezbollah's leaders might see a move toward demilitarization as a new avenue for increasing the group's appeal and bolstering its credibility as a party. Contact with Hezbollah would have to exploit this impulse to be useful."

Hizbullah does'nt need or want to shift into the political realm in Lebanon any more decisively as this is something it does not wish to do. In any case it has all the political control it needs. Hizbullah prefers to occupy a few ministerial appointments in key positions in the government along with pro-Hizbullah ministers who can do its bidding. This is because Hizbullah prefers to remain outside the corrupt practices of patron client consociational politics in Lebanon. Although Hizbullah did become more involved in Lebanese politics after the Syrian withdrawal in 2005 it only did so to ensure political support for its resistance and to fill the gap left by Syria. As long as Hizbullah has political cover for its arms it is quite content to remain in the background to a certain extent. Moreover, as I said in my previous post,Hizbullah isnt Iran's lackey but to suggest that it is distancing itself from Iran to increase its legitimacy among Lebanese parties is ludicrous and similar to saying Israel is distancing itself from the U.S.
Due to the confessional system of voting in Lebanon where the voter is obliged to vote for his local leader in return for patronage Hizbullah is more likely to gain extra support by holding onto its weapons rather than disarming.Hizbullah does'nt need more votes but the backing of key players. Walid Jumblatt is a case in example. After criticising Hizbullah for many years he has recently changed to a pro-Hizbullah stance and in the last few days publically endorsed Hizbullah's resistance. This turnaround resulted from Jumblatt's evaluation that his Druze community was better off on the side of Hizbullah than against. He made this decision because of Hizbullah's military strength and not because of its legitimacy. Islamist movements with an armed wing like Hizbullah thrive in weak states like Lebanon.
Hizbullah may have lost the elections in June but it does'nt count for much in a country in which Hizbullah maintains significant control due to its military strength.
Hizbullah has many ways to gain appeal and credibility in Lebanon and disarming is'nt one of them. Moreover, as mentioned in a previous post many in Lebanon might not like Hizbullah but see Hizbullah's weapons as a necessary protection against Israel until a defence strategy can be worked out as part of National Dialogue talks.However,don't expect any tangible results on these talks(whenever they get started) any time soon.

The article goes on to say
"An inclusive effort might also convince Hezbollah that its future prospects depend on effective governance and rebuilding Lebanon's debt-ridden economy, not on its military arsenal".
To state that Hizbullah needs convincing about its own future when these two authors clearly don't understand Hizbullah in the first place is an insult to common sense. It would be like me recommending to Lance Armstrong in the peak of his career that his future prospects depend on him doing weight training to build muscles on his shoulders and back and not on his legs(Ok not exactly,but you get the message).
Suggesting that Hizbullah may submit to a decommissioning process with Israel agreeing to withdraw from the Sheeba farms is a silly notion hardly worthy of an explanation. Suffice to say it won't happen.

There are numerous academics who can provide a good analysis on Hizbullah. Unfortunately, this article does not provide it but rather adds to any misconceptions about Hizbullah.

Kouchner's statement about Hizbullah

2010-01-23T10:28:00.000-08:00

The French Foreign Minister's Bernard Kouchner statement yesterday "If there was a threat to Lebanon, it will only come from a military adventure carried out by Hizbullah in the best interest of Iran" has added to the existing tension of another round of conflict between Lebanon and Israel. This statement highlights Kouchner's ineptitude of Lebanese politics, how Hizbullah thinks and operates within Lebanon and its relationship with Iran. Let me ask you this question : Do you think if Israel had an opportunity to strike at the leader of Hizbullah Hasan Nasrallah within Lebanon in an airstrike in a public place it would carry out the attack ?? Would you consider it a military adventure and do you think it would be acceptable ??
Hizbullah's leaders are extremely analytical and pragmatic and weigh up every action meticulously with an analysis of all the probable actions of Israel regarding any given scenario. In the 2006 war Hizbullah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers which led to Israeli launching its attack on Lebanon. Hizbullah had calculated that there was nothing whatsoever to indicate from past experiences that Israel would launch a war on Lebanon.Hasan Nasrallah stated to the Lebanese people that Hizbullah would never have kidnapped the soldiers if he knew that Israel would launch such an attack on Lebanon. Hizbullah had kidnapped the soldiers to use them as bargaining chips to attain the release of Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. Hizbullah argues that an Israeli strike on Hizbullah was already in the planning in 2006 and kidnapping the soldiers merily accelerated the attack. Moreover, when Israel did attack, some in Washington were keen for Israel to extend their attack to Syria according to experts I interviewed in Lebanon. Indeed,Condoleeza Rice's famous statement expressed the U.S. government decision to prolong the conflict which resulted in more civilian deaths. She stated : "What we're seeing here is, in a sense, the growing—the birth pangs of a new Middle East, and whatever we do, we have to be certain that we're pushing forward to the new Middle East, not going back to the old Middle East"
This arrogant U.S. foreign policy during the war in Lebanon in 2006 did nothing to stem the tide of rising anti-American and anti-Israeli passion in Lebanon and the Middle East.
It is important to note that while Hizbullah acts outside the jurisdiction of the Lebanese state and many in Lebanon don't like Hizbulalh they feel that Hizbullah's protection against Israel is necessary and many in Lebanon see Israel as the threat.
Hizbullah isn't a lackey to Iran and certainly will not do anything against Israel which would be detriment to its own support in Lebanon especially at a time when it is focusing on its domestic agenda. In fact, Hizbullah believes that it is Israel that would most likely attack Hizbullah pre-emptively before it attacks Iran. From interviews I carried out in both Lebanon and Israel it was clear that Israel's and Hizbullah's perceptions of what Hizbullah and Israel might and might not do if Israel attacked Iran were quite different. This has contributed to the tension that has resulted in both sides preparing assidiously for a much bigger and broader conflict next time round.
Hizbullah is strategically aligned with Iran but sees this alliance as no different from the U.S. alliance with Israel.
Its ironic because Hizbullah could easily have said the same statement as Kouchner with a replacement of actors which would have read "If there was a threat to Lebanon it will only come from a military adventure carried out by Israel in the best interest of America" And there have been many adventure's into Lebanon in 78,82 and 2006 including 22 years occupying Southern Lebanon.More people in the Arab world would believe the latter statement rather than the former.This is their world view.
With the anniversary of the death of Imad Mughniyeh approaching tensions are high. However this is nothing new between Israel and Hizbullah. Both sides have been training and preparing defensively since 2006.
Although a war could always be triggered it is highly unlikely at the present time.