Op-Ed: Anti-Semitic Qatar casts a giant shadow.
Arutz Sheva 7
Published: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 2:01 PM
It is bad enough that a small country like Israel has
to contend with the likes of Qatar and their fellow travelers in the
Arab world, but to have them embraced by the ruling elites in the US and
Europe increases the danger to Israel exponentially.
Ted Belman, Israpundit
The author is a retired attorney and the editor of Israpundit. In 2009 he made aliya and is
now living in Jerusalem.
Qatar is a small country with few people (1.87 million of which only
300,000 are citizens), yet it casts a giant shadow over N. Africa, the
Middle East and Europe.
It has the highest GDP per capita in the
world and the highest energy reserves per capita in the world. While it
treats its women more liberally than S. Arabia does, it has been
indicted for immigrant labour violations and human trafficking. It is
notorious for how badly it treats its foreign workers.
The U.S. Department of State’s
2012 Trafficking in Persons Report reports:
“Qatar
is a destination country for men and women subjected to forced labor
and, to a lesser extent, forced prostitution. [They] voluntarily
migrate to Qatar as low-skilled laborers and domestic servants, but
some subsequently face conditions of involuntary servitude.
"These
conditions include threats of serious physical or financial harm;
withholding of pay; charging workers for benefits for which the
employer
is responsible; restrictions on freedom of movement, including the
confiscation of passports, travel documents, and the withholding of
exit permits; arbitrary detention; threats of legal action and
deportation; threats of filing false charges against the worker; and
physical, mental, and sexual abuse.
"In some cases, arriving migrant workers have found that the terms of
employment in
Qatar are different from those they agreed to in their home countries;
businesses and individuals in Qatar reportedly promised migrants
employment opportunities that never materialized. “
Why would such a rich country treat its invitee workers so meanly?
The
world’s attention has been focused on Saudi Arabia whose attention has
been focused on the U.S. It has built 80% of the mosques in America and
has installed Wahhabi Imams in all of them. For almost a century, it has
cultivated relations with the State Department and the White House,
making certain to reward diplomats and presidents, when they retire,
with oodles of
money for “good behavior”.
It
also has made grants in the tens of millions to some high profile U.S.
universities such as Harvard U, Columbia U. and Georgetown U. See
The Vast Power of the Saudi Lobby.
Qatar, on the other hand, is a Mohammed-come-lately.
After the Gulf War in 1991, the U.S. opened the Al Udeid air base in Qatar.
The Emir of Qatar is a Wahhabi fundamentalist. He founded
Al-Jazeera
in 1996 and it broadcast in Arabic only for many years. It enabled the
Emir to greatly influence the Arab masses and to radicalize them. It
gained worldwide renown due to its coverage of the Afghan War.
In
’02 the US signed a mutual defense pact with Qatar and began using the
Al Udeid base for the USAir command Center in the Gulf. This base now
serves as a logistics, command, and basing hub for U.S. operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq.
At that time, the US Army built the Sayliyah
army base in Qatar. It serves as the world's largest pre-positioned
army equipment base.
Obviously the US and Qatar are joined at the hip.
About half a dozen years ago, 1)
Qatar built Education City and attracted many prestigious universities
from around the world including the US with generous grants from the
Qatar Foundation,
2) Al-Jazeera International, began broadcasting in English 24/7 throughout the world and
3) Brookings Institute, the most
respected think-tank in the world, opened up a service center in its capital Doha, known as Brookings Doha Institute.
Thus Qatar came of age. Qatar was positioning itself to become an international mediator.
According to an academic paper,
Mediation and Qatari Foreign Policy
"Since the mid-2000s, Qatar has become one of the world’s most active
mediators in regional and intra-national conflicts across the Middle
East and parts of Africa. The most notable of these have involved
mediation efforts in Lebanon, Sudan, and Yemen, with similar though
lower-profile efforts undertaken in Palestine and in the border conflict
between Djibouti and Eritrea. In the process, Qatar has actively
cultivated an image for itself as an honest broker interested in
peace and stability."
But mediation isn't the half of it.
LibyaThe
object of the NATO lead war in Libya, according to Pepe Escobar in
Asia Times,
was “…about NATO ruling the Mediterranean as a NATO lake, it was about
Africom’s war against China and setting up a key strategic base, it was
about the French and the Brits getting juicy contracts to exploit
Libya’s natural resources to their benefit”
This was all made possible by the
The US-Saudi Libya deal“You
invade Bahrain. We take out Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. This, in short,
is the essence of a deal struck between the Barack Obama administration
and the House of Saud.”
Qatar was quick to join the fighting in
Libva both with troops on the ground and fighter jets in the air. It
also became the chief supplier of weapons to the rebels which included
Islamists of all stripes. It became the first country after France to
recognize the Provisional Transitional National Council of Libya.
David Roberts explains what’s behind
Qatar's Intervention In Libya in an article published by
Foreign Affairs.
“Qatar
hopes to insert itself as the key mediator between the Muslim world and
the West. Qatar sees its role as a highly specialized interlocutor
between the two worlds, making -- from the West's point of view --
unpalatable but necessary friendships and alliances with anti-Western
leaders, including the Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal, Hizbullah's spiritual
leader, Hassan Nasrallah, and the Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, to name
but a few recent visitors to Doha. “
“Similarly, Qatar
recognizes that Islamists are an indelible part of the political
landscape in Libya and a potentially combustible one, given that, per
capita, eastern Libya alone provided twice as many would-be jihadists as
any other Arabic-speaking country to the Iraqi resistance in 2007 and
2008. Ignoring or marginalizing this demographic would not be prudent;
but from the West's perspective, engaging with even reformed Islamist
fighters is difficult. This is the niche that Qatar is trying to fill in
Libya and elsewhere.”
This is a facility of which President Obama is anxious to avail himself.
Syria
A
year ago, Qatar and Saudi Arabia set up a this mobile intervention
Sunni Muslim force out of al Qaeda linked-operatives for rapid
deployment on the Turkish-Syrian border.
DEBKA reports:
“A
force of 2,500 has been recruited up until now, our sources report. The
hard core is made up of 1,000 members of the Islamic Fighting Group in
Libya-IFGL, which fought Qaddafi, and 1,000 operatives of the Ansar
al-Sunna, the Iraqi Islamists which carried out 15 coordinated bomb
attacks in Baghdad last Thursday killing 72 people and injuring 200."
"The
new Sunni force, funded by the Persian Gulf oil states, is silently
backed by the US and NATO members, with Turkey in the forefront of this
support group.”
James Lewis in
Benghazi reveals Obama-Islamist Alliance published by
American Thinker asserted:
“The nature of the
Benghazi disaster is now clear. Ambassador
Stevens was engaged in
smuggling
sizable quantities of Libyan arms from the destroyed Gaddafi regime to
the Syrian rebels, to help overthrow the Assad regime in Syria.
Smuggling
arms
to the so-called “Free Syrian Army” is itself a huge gamble, but Obama
has been a gambler with human lives over the last four years, as shown
by the tens of thousands of Arabs who have died in the so-called Arab
Spring — which has brought nothing but disaster to the Arab world.
“For
the last four years, the Obama policy has been to offer aid and comfort
to violent Islamic radicals in the delusional belief that their loyalty
can be
bought.”
Finally
Qatar recently played host to representatives of the Syrian opposition
recently and successfully arranged an agreement for a unified
opposition.
To think that Qatar’s investment in the overthrow
of Assad has a humanitarian agenda is a bit of a stretch. Not only do
Qatar and Saudi Arabia want to sever the Syrian’s connection to Iran to
weaken Iran, but they also want to end up controlling Syria so that they
can
build
a gas pipeline from their countries through Jordan and Syria to the
Mediterranean. That’s also one of the reasons why Iran is fighting so
hard to retain control of Syria.
EuropeArutz Sheva's Italian journalist, Giulio Meotti has investigated
Qatar’s reach into Europe:
“Qatari
Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, who has cultivated the image of
a pro-Western reformist, vowed to “spare no effort” to spread the
teachings of Wahhabi Islam across “the whole world”. Last December
Qatari Emir inaugurated the “Imam Imam Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab” Mosque
in Doha, dedicated to the founder of the most virulent, anti-Jewish and
totalitarian Islamic school of religion.
“Qatar’s octopus is
working on three fronts: overthrowing despotic Arab regimes and replace
these with sharia-based countries; destroying Israel by financing the
terror groups (the emir just visited Gaza) – and Islamizing the European
continent through mosques and investments.”
In addition to
itemizing the enormous investments in Europe made by Qatar which affords
her considerable leverage and influence, he highlights her agenda:
“Qatar
is a bastion of anti-Semitism, which goes around the world along with
the investments. A Qatari television show, based on a book by late
Palestinian author Ghassan Kanafani, shows a Holocaust survivor who
resorts to prostitution and claims the Nazis did no wrong. “I didn’t see
any gas chambers”, she is seen saying. An actor depicting former
Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin calls on Jews to murder Arab
civilians.
‘Qatar is also hosting many conferences which demonize the Jews. [..]
“In Doha’s Friday sermons, Jews are called “parasites”.
Back to the Nazis.
With
an imperial flux of money and ideology, the former British protectorate
of Qatar is discouraging Muslim integration in Europe in order to
better dominate it, fomenting anti-Semitism and cultural separation,
actively encouraging jihad against the State of Israel.
“Qatar’s
course of action is very practical: convincing Europe that the real
name of Jerusalem is Al Quds, that the Koran replaced the Bible and that
the Jewish Temple Mount is just a conspiracy.”
It is bad
enough that a small country like Israel has to contend with the likes of
Qatar and their fellow travelers in the Arab world, but to have them
embraced by the ruling elites in the US and Europe increases the danger
to Israel exponentially.
It used to be that anti-Semites
were shunned by western societies. But now, they are embraced and sought
after with nary a word said. Furthermore these societies and countries
assist the Arabs to realize their agendas by participating in the
deligitimation and defamation of Israel and Jews.
This embrace
is emblematic of a broader embrace. President Obama, from day one of
his administration, has aided and abetted Islamists in Libya, Egypt and
Syria to come to power. He has embraced PM Erdogan of Turkey who is also
Islamist calling him his new best friend. Many have argued that he is
undermining King Abdullah of Jordan in the expectation that the Muslim
Brotherhood will replace him.
All this represents extreme danger to Israel. But it also represents extreme danger to America.
It
is compounded by Presidents Obama’s embrace of Islamists in the US who
now have undue influence in the FBI, The State Department, Justice,
Homeland Security and the White House.
Except for a few lone
voices in the Republican Party, Republicans have not challenged Obama’s
Islamist embrace. Silence is consent.
I worry for Israel. And for America.
Labels: Political Realities, Political Realities Middle East, Qatar, Racism, Saudi Arabia, Traditions, Troublespots, Turkey, United States
The Viral Pathology of Hatred
"The occupying state has to understand that the changes the Arab region, and especially Egypt, have witnessed will not permit that the Palestinian people be put under the hold of the Israeli offence in the same way as the past."
Freedom and Justice Party, Muslim Brotherhood
"There should be no doubt that we will retaliate. We will retaliate, we will fire rockets and we will fight until we are killed."
Ahmed Al-Jabari's nephew Mohammed
"It doesn't really matter that it was Jabari who was killed. It could have been any of us. I never believed this truce with Israel would hold. This is what it will be until the world's final days --- us against the Jews."
Ghalib al Hatour Gaza City streetside spare parts workshop owner
Occupier? Did not the Zionist Entity vacate Gaza of all its Jewish settlements, withdraw all its citizens from the Gaza Strip, and leave it and the buildings therein to the Palestinians to do with what they would? Among them an extensive greenhouse compound as a ready-made enterprise for Palestinian agricultural entrepreneurs, which they trashed, along with synagogues?
The Gaza Strip was left to the Gazans to build within it their own society unobstructed by the irritating presence of Jews whose enterprise had built thriving businesses there. Israel withdrew the settlers, and withdrew its forces. It waited for Gazans to organize themselves, to take pride in themselves, to begin the process of structuring a law-abiding and fruitful, secure state for themselves.
What resulted was gangs oppressing those who merely wanted to exist unmolested. What resulted was criminal activity with tribal groups battling one another for primacy, predators on the bulk of Gaza's Palestinians. And an increasing frequency of incursions across the border into Israel of committed jihadists eager for martyrdom, sacrificing themselves in the pursuit of mass murder.
Enter Hamas. And security within Gaza ensued, as the tribal enmities were subdued, and the Fatah aligned faction was brutally expunged, killed or exiled. And Gaza's Palestinians, already committed to Islamism unlike the more secular-inclined West Bank Palestinians, found themselves under another occupation, that of Islamist Hamas, offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose charter emphasized the destruction of Israel.
A restraining wall eventually was built to physically separate Israel from the enterprise of death, so beloved by jihadists; doubly embraced as the entrance for them to Paradise and the method by which, through their sacred mission leading to the slaughter of countless Jews, they could approach the voluptuous virgins awaiting their heavenly ministrations.
Hamas and Islamic Jihad and the countless other jihadi militias took to leaping the impediment of the restraining wall by the manufacture of crude rockets. The Kassams eventually morphed into more sophisticated, far-reaching and dangerous bombardments courtesy of Iran and Syria. And one hundred of them in one week-end proved to be too much of a challenge for Israel to ignore.
The criminal mastermind of the 'modernization' of the Hamas military, the planner and executor of atrocities against Israelis was next in line for mortal punishment to aid in Israel's 'deterrence' warning gainst ongoing assaults against its citizens. And while Hamas scorned Israel's repeated warnings as empty rhetoric, Israel's intelligence experts carefully planned its moves.
"I would call him the number one terrorist in the Gaza Strip, whose hands are stained with blood", said Brig.-Gen. Yoav Mordechai, Israel's chief military spokesman. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the killing of Ahmed al-Jabari, commander of Hamas's military wing as a
"clear message" to Hamas, that
"If it becomes necessary we are prepared to expand the operation."
These messages really do reach deaf ears. The IDF was intent on targeting Hamas's medium-range underground rocket launch and infrastructure sites in the strikes that followed.
"Israel has declared war on Gaza and they will bear the responsibility for the consequences", said Islamic Jihad. Yes, yes they will.
Labels: Conflict, Defence, Egypt, Gaza, Hamas, Islamism, Israel, Political Realities, Political Realities Middle East, Technology, Terrorism
NGO Urges Basic
Fact-Finding Standards for UN Body
by Maayana Miskin 
- Arutz Sheva 7
The NGO Monitor watchdog group has
filed a submission to the UN Human Rights Council's (UNHRC) "independent
international fact-finding Mission on the Israeli Settlements," expressing
concern over the Mission's working methods and calling for compliance with
fact-finding standards and ethical principles. The submission demands, at a
minimum, strict adherence to the principles of impartiality and objectivity,
transparency in all interactions with NGOs and professional guidelines for
assessing the credibility and factual and legal claims of
NGOs.
"Already, contrary to principles of impartiality, the
Mission's mandate presumes guilt on Israel's part, while failing to address the
wider context, including the systematic terror campaign against Israeli
civilians," said Anne Herzberg, NGO Monitor's Legal Advisor. "Our submission
reminds the fact-finding mission of its obligation to comply with standards of
transparency, impartiality, and independence in conducting its work. Otherwise,
this Mission risks being discredited like the infamous fact-finding mission to
Gaza, which produced the 'Goldstone Report.'"
One of the most
concerning issues is the Mission’s offer to keep the all submissions of
information confidential. This makes it impossible to verify the claims made in
the group’s reports.
Among the Israeli groups that have declared
they will approach the mission is Yesh Din, a far-left, European-funded group
that has run into trouble before for failing to use comparative data and failing
to mention critical facts when alleging Israeli misbehavior. In one recent
example, the group claimed Israeli discrimination in military investigations
involving Arab complaints – but as NGO Monitor discovered, the group failed to
consider the question of “whether one military advocate or another was ‘right’
or ‘wrong’ when they decided to close a specific investigation file” – in other
words, whether the cases they cited were actually discriminatory, or merely
showed normal investigative work.
Another concern is prejudicial
statements made by top staff on the “fact-finding mission.” Mission head
Christine Chanet has argued that “it is very difficult to have a real dialogue
[with Israel].” Similarly, Special Rapporteur Richard Falk has called for a boycott of companies that do business with
Israelis in Judea and Samaria.
The UNHRC mission appears to have
resulted from pressure from NGOs, most of them Arab and Islamic groups that
are notoriously anti-Israel, such as Al-Haq and BADIL, NGO Monitor stated.
“These NGOS… frequently use highly offensive and one-sided rhetoric in their
politicized campaigns against Israel,” NGO Monitor noted.
NGO
Monitor also took issue with the mission’s budget. “The UNHRC has yet to explain
why, in a time of global economic crisis, while ignoring real human rights
concerns, it would waste the UN budget on yet another politicized exercise
targeting Israel," said Herzberg. "The excess includes a proposed payment of
$105,300 for two months of work from an unidentified 'thematic expert.'"
Labels: Arab League, Human Relations, Human Rights, Islam, Israel, Political Realities Middle East, United Nations
Now that supporters of the jihad against the U.S. are training the CIA, traitorous hard-Left pseudo-journalist
Spencer Ackerman
must be popping open the champagne and crowing, "mission accomplished."
"CIA Hosts Training by Muslim Brotherhood Leader and Hamas Supporter,"
by John Guandolo for
Breitbart, October 24 (thanks to John):
Over the last several years, the presence of Muslim Brotherhood (MB)
operatives working inside the federal government advising our senior
leaders has been definitively documented (see articles here , here and here).
This penetration of our system is shocking and constitutes an immediate
danger for American citizens. The success of the MB’s influence
operation from within our government is now manifesting itself with
national and global implications for the security of America and its
citizens.
In July of this year, the CIA hosted a 2-day training program at its
headquarters in Langley, Virginia entitled “Countering Violent Extremism
Workshop for the National Capitol Region.”
CIA Agenda
Present at this conference were local, state, and federal officials
from nearly every law enforcement, military, and intelligence
organization around the Washington Metropolitan area. In addition to
the senior CIA, FBI, and DHS officials conducting the training, members
of the Muslim community moderated and led the training throughout the
2-day program. Notable among these was Imam Mohammed Magid who
participated in speaking about “Building Communities of Trust: A Local
Example of a Partnership between the All Dulles Area Muslim Society
(ADAMS) and Law Enforcement.”
CVE CIA
How was Imam Magid vetted to speak at CIA Headquarters? And who vetted him?
The ADAMS Center is a Muslim Brotherhood front organization. It was
founded by some of the most senior Muslim Brothers in the United States,
to include Ahmed Totanji, who still resides in Herndon, Virginia. Its website proclaims
“[ADAMS] is a membership organization registered in the State of
Virginia as a non-profit, tax exempt corporation and is affiliated with
the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).”
Imam Magid is the Executive Director of the ADAMS Center. He is also
the President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the
largest Muslim Brotherhood organization in the U.S. which was found to
be a financial support entity for Hamas
in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial in U.S. history (US v
Holy Land Foundation, Dallas, 2008). Having Magid advise and teach
U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials can only be aptly
described as insane. According to officials at Langley who were willing
to speak on the condition of anonymity, this is an outrage - but none
of the leaders on the inside seem to understand the gravity of this
threat. To say the fox is in the hen house would be an understatement.
But the insanity does not end there. Imam Mohammed Magid continues
to be a guest in the White House, works with the National Security Council,
advises the Secretary of State, is on the DHS Homeland Security
Advisory Working Group, and has received an award from the FBI. Magid
continues to be treated by American leaders as if he is a friend, yet he
is the leader of the largest MB front in the U.S. which financially
supports the terrorist organization Hamas.
The question must also be asked – who vetted the other “leaders” from
the Muslim community who moderated panels and led the training at CIA
Headquarters? Are any of them Muslim Brothers or sympathetic to the MB
cause?
Read it all.
Labels: Muslim Brotherhood, Political Realities Middle East, Security, Social-Cultural Deviations, United States
-
In Aleppo, Syria cease-fire was short-lived
Syrian rebels made advances in Aleppo last night. This morning, as
the UN-brokered cease-fire went into effect, the Syrian Army retaliated.
By
Kristen Chick, Correspondent /
October 26, 2012
A
Syrian man looks upon a damaged mosque and sniper lane as the intense
human and material cost grows from three months of intense fighting
against rebels of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) in Aleppo, Syria, on
October 24.
Scott Peterson/The Christian Science Monitor/Getty Images
Regime and rebel forces engaged in clashes in
Syria's largest city today, breaking a cease-fire agreement only hours after it got underway.
United Nations special envoy to Syria
Lakhdar Brahimi brokered the deal, timed to coincide with the Muslim holiday
Eid al-Adha, in hopes that a temporary cessation of violence would provide a window for work to begin on negotiations.
Rebel forces said the
Syrian Army
attacked this morning, the first day of the four-day holiday, after
rebels made advances in the city last night for the first time in weeks.
The government had previously said it would hold to the cease-fire only
if the rebels did; some rebel commanders said the same, while others
refused to agree to any break in the fighting.
The Syrian Army intermittently shelled rebel forces and the two sides exchanged gunfire on multiple fronts in
Aleppo
today, where the government and the rebels have been locked in a fierce
battle for Syria's manufacturing and industrial center since July.
However, the light clashes were nothing like the intense battles that
raged in the city weeks ago.
Not
long after sunset, a large shell exploded over the city, leaving a
plume of black smoke. In the neighborhood of Karm el-Jebel,
the commander of the rebel brigade fighting in the area said regime
forces began attacking in the morning, and shelled rebel positions with
two tanks in the afternoon.
"There is no ceasefire," said Abu
Yazem, commander of the rebels' Martyr Abu Abdu Brigade and a former
Syrian Army officer who asked that his full name not be used. "From
early this morning, they started to shoot at us."
He conferred
with a small group of his fighters as darkness descended on the
completely deserted neighborhood. No lights shown from the broken
buildings, and the only sign of life was a family of stray cats that
mewed loudly while scurrying through the rubble-strewn streets. The
crack of gunshots echoed in the darkened neighborhood.
Abu Ali
Saqr, the head of the Saqr el Quraysh brigade, said his men fought
regime forces in Salaheddin area. "The ceasefire is fake," he says.
"Last night a missile from the regime landed here," he said, gesturing
to the roof of the building where a rebel division is headquartered.
The
fighting today came after the rebels made gains in three areas of the
city last night. Officers from the Liwa el Tawheed division said the
rebels took the districts of
Ashrafieh
and Bani Zeid, both Kurdish areas, through a deal with the local armed
Kurdish group, which has previously refused to join the revolution. The
rebels and the armed Kurdish group are negotiating over the fate of
missing rebel soldiers who disappeared after entering the Kurdish areas.
Though the rebels have made gains, the regime still has a firm hold on parts of the city.
In
rebel-held parts of Aleppo earlier today, men waited with herds of
sheep they hoped residents would buy for the holiday. Traditionally,
families buy a sheep or another animal and slaughter it on the Eid,
eating some of the meat and giving the rest to the poor. But customers
were few and far between in the city. Many residents have fled the
fighting, while others can no longer afford to buy a sheep or don't wish
to celebrate. According to opposition estimates, more than 30,000
people have died since the uprising began in March 2011.
Labels: Political Realities Middle East, Security, Societal Failures, Syria, United Nations
State Dept. in the Dark on Qatar Visit to Gaza
Qatar’s
emir is first foreign leader to visit Hamas, but the State Dept. does
not seem to be clued in. “Let me check,” says spokesman.
By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu- ArutzSheva 7
First Publish: 10/23/2012, 4:43 PM
Hamas soldiers before arrival of Qatari Emir
AFP Photo
The emir of oil-rich Qatar is the first foreign leader to visit
Hamas in Gaza, but the U.S. State Dept. does not seem to be clued in.
Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani crossed into Gaza on
Tuesday in the first visit by a head of state since the Islamist Hamas
movement took over in 2007.
During his brief visit, the emir will inaugurate a $254-million Qatari investment project.
Asked by a reporter in Washington about the visit, U.S. State Dept, Spokesman Mark
Toner said, “I don’t have any reaction to it. I don’t think I have much to – what did you say? He’s going to visit?"
Reminded by the journalist that the emir was to visit Gaza, Toner answered, “Gaza. Let me check. I don’t think I have any comment on it.”
He later
added at the daily
press briefing, “Actually, I did find – we have seen reports about the
possible visit to Gaza by Qatari senior officials, and our only comment
would be that our position towards Hamas has not changed. We still view
them as a designated foreign terrorist organization.”
Toner also held back from criticizing former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who once again
lashed out at Israel this week, saying that the United States has “zero influence” on Israel to pursue the “two-state solution.”
Toner said he has not seen Carter’s remarks but
quickly added
that the Obama administration is still pursing the “peace process,”
which virtually all media analysts have dismissed as dead and buried,
“You know what we’re trying to do there,” Toner said, “David Hale remains very engaged on this issue. The Secretary’s obviously engaged on this issue. We
want to see
both parties get back to the negotiating table. It’s our firm belief
that only by getting them into direct talks will they be able to resolve
these issues."
More on this topic
Labels: Political Realities Middle East, Traditions, United States
Benghazi and Arab Spring Rear Up in U.S. Campaign
New York Times - 22 October 2012
Mazen Mahdi/European Pressphoto Agency
Protesters on Sunday in Bahrain, where a Shiite democracy movement has been crushed.
Published: October 21, 2012
BENGHAZI, Libya — When people here talk about American politics, many
look to the sky, where the buzz of surveillance drones has grown heavy
since last month’s deadly assault on the United States mission in this
city in eastern Libya.
Narciso Contreras/Associated Press
Syrian rebels crawled on a sidewalk in Aleppo on
Saturday as they tried to rescue a Syrian civilian who had been shot.
“Give it a rest, Obama,” one resident posted in a Twitter message on
Saturday morning, after a low-flying drone woke much of the city. “We
want to get some sleep.”
The drones are a vivid reminder that Benghazi has become the focal point
of a fierce debate over what role the United States should seek to play
in shaping the new order emerging from the revolts of the Arab Spring,
an issue that is expected to be a flash point in Monday night’s foreign
policy debate between
Mitt Romney and
President Obama.
Yet Benghazi has entered the American political lexicon with contradictory meanings.
To Mr. Romney, the Republican presidential nominee, the city has become
shorthand for the growing threat to the United States from Islamist
militants — and what Romney advisers call the Obama administration’s
“passivity” in the face of the menace. To President Obama, Benghazi is
also the place where moderate Islamists took up arms to defend American
diplomats from extremists, a democratically elected president rushed to
express his solidarity with Washington and thousands turned out to
demand the rule of law and mourn an American envoy.
The candidates’ differing views encapsulate their approaches to both the
Arab Spring and the nature of American power. Mr. Obama has emphasized
cautious restraint, out of philosophical support for Arab demands for
self-governance and out of a conviction that events in the region are
largely beyond American control. Mr. Romney has stressed his wariness of
the popular uprisings and vowed a more assertive approach to
influencing their outcome.
That disagreement in many ways mirrors the paradoxical views of America
held by many of the region’s people and policy makers, who see
Washington as all-powerful but also doomed to self-sabotage whenever it
intervenes there.
Many here ask, nodding toward the sky, has America not learned the lessons of Iraq?
“People, psychologically, are quite anxious,” said Jalal el-Gallal, a
Benghazi political activist, who worries that the pressures of an
election year could prompt an American strike on militants suspected in
the consulate attack. “It would destroy all the good will that was won
over the last two years of engagement, and it could undermine the
elected government and make the place ungovernable.”
More than a decade of public opinion polls have shown that, except for
the hope that America might goad Israel toward recognizing a
Palestinian
state, overwhelming majorities of the populations in every Arab country
would prefer a more restrained American foreign policy like Mr.
Obama’s. For many, Mr. Romney’s assertion in an address that “there is a
longing for American leadership in the Middle East” is not just false
but a laugh line.
If Mr. Obama’s soft touch is popular in the region, however, it may not
be in America’s best interest, argued Shadi Hamid, research director of
the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar.
“There is a widespread sense in the region that Obama is a weak,
somewhat feckless leader,” Mr. Hamid said, citing Mr. Obama’s
acquiescence in confrontations with Israeli leaders over settlements and
with Egypt’s generals over the prosecution of American-backed nonprofit
groups.
“People think that if you are in a standoff with Obama and you hold your
ground, he will eventually back down,” Mr. Hamid said.
The contrast between the candidates is so stark they sometimes appear to
be on opposite sides of the Arab Spring itself. President Obama, his
advisers say, began with the premise that the old American-backed order
of secular autocracies was already crumbling from within and could no
longer promise stability, while the Arab demands for self-governance
accorded more with American values.
“The president made a decision to side with democratic change,” said
Benjamin Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, “and we made it
clear that it is not our place to dictate the outcomes in any given
country.”
Mr. Romney has emphasized the risks of uprisings. Eliot A. Cohen, a
foreign policy adviser to his campaign, said he questioned the concept
of an Arab Spring altogether. “It is not clear to me what is
germinating,” he said.
Where the president says he is supporting new democracies, Mr. Romney
argues that the Obama administration has, in effect, abandoned the
region to forces hostile to American interests. “If you don’t even try
to shape events,” Mr. Cohen said, “then for sure you are going to get a
bad outcome.”
Neither candidate has fully squared the potential conflicts of American
values and interests, a problem most acute in the case of Bahrain. Its
Sunni Muslim monarch used brutal force to crush a democracy movement
among the Shiite majority, but the island kingdom is also home to the
United States Navy’s Fifth Fleet and a crucial bulwark against Iranian
influence.
Obama administration officials say they concluded that even the presence
of the Fifth Fleet gave Washington little influence over Bahrain’s
rulers. Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni monarchies in the Persian Gulf
were determined to prop up the kingdom even if the United States
withdrew.
In the most urgent question now posed by the Arab Spring, rebels in
Syria are battling a longtime American foe, marching under the banner of
Arab democracy and pleading for Washington to supply them with weapons.
But the Obama administration has nonetheless declined to provide the
arms, saying it has too little sway over the direction of the
insurgency, the influence of Islamist extremists, the potential that the
weapons might be turned on neighbors like Israel or the likelihood of a
sectarian blood bath. Iraq, White House advisers say, proved that the
United States is ill equipped to manage a sectarian civil war.
Mr. Romney has vowed to arm the opposition despite the acknowledged
risks, as a way of buying an American say in whatever comes next.
“Sooner or later Assad is going to go down, so you are better off
getting in there early to try to shape what you are going to get as a
result,” Mr. Cohen said, referring to Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s ruler.
“Or the choice is to be passive, as we have been, and watch the void
filled by others who don’t like us,” like hard-line Islamists.
On Friday, the Syrian opposition declared a national demonstration to
express its frustration at the American refusal to supply it with
weapons. But the Syrian rebels also say they doubt that as president Mr.
Romney would live up to his promise or that Congress would let him. “It
is just propaganda for the elections,” said Abu Jaafar El Megharbel, an
activist from Homs.
Some regional governments supportive of the rebels dismissed Mr.
Romney’s proposal in even stronger terms. “That would explode the whole
area, if Romney is serious about it,” warned Amr Darrag, the top foreign
policy official of the political party of the Muslim Brotherhood in
Egypt, the party of the country’s newly elected president. “The
difference reflects the good experience of President Obama and a lack of
experience of Governor Romney.”
On the subject of political Islam, the Obama administration concluded
that democracy would inevitably empower Islamist parties, leaving the
United States no choice but to build partnerships with them. Breaking
decades of mutual hostility, the administration has opened cordial
relations with the Islamists who dominated elections in both Tunisia and
Egypt — in each case, with promises of tolerance, pluralism and
constitutional democracy.
White House officials said they have no bias against Islamist parties.
“We will judge these parties not by who they are but what they do,” Mr.
Rhodes said. Officials said that responsibility for governing and
participation in the political process can have a moderating influence
on the movement. “We believe there is a chance for democratic change to
undercut the Al Qaeda narrative,” Mr. Rhodes said.
The Romney camp, on the other hand, views Islamists — even the most
moderate — as a potentially threatening force. Despite their public
statements and recent track record, Mr. Cohen argued, it was premature
to conclude that any of the Islamists were committed to democracy.
“I think we have to be very cautious that it is only a ‘one man, one
vote, one time’ kind of process,” he said. “We are going to have a very
complicated relationship with these people.”
To Mr. Romney, foreign aid should be used for political leverage,
particularly in Egypt. Mr. Obama has resisted attaching any conditions
to the $1.5 billion in annual American aid to Egypt in order to preserve
friendly relations and long-term influence. Mr. Romney has vowed to use
the money as punishment or reward.
For example, Mr. Cohen said, Mr. Romney might penalize Egypt’s Islamist
government for its slow response when protesters breached the walls of
the American Embassy in Cairo last month. “We are not going to give
those kinds of sums to people who fail to deliver on their most basic
obligations to us,” he said.
But Mr. Darrag of the Muslim Brotherhood said the aid was not much of a
cudgel against a country with an economy of $200 billion a year. “It is
just not acceptable for one party to say, ‘We give you this amount of
money so you have to listen to what we are saying,’ ” he said. “That is
when we get very offended.”
Such talk was the difference between a candidate and a president, Mr.
Darrag said, arguing that governing responsibility would moderate Mr.
Romney as well, just as it has previous presidents. “I would say Romney
would sound the same as Obama four years after the start of his term,”
Mr. Darrag said, “That has always been the case."
Suliman Ali Zway contributed reporting from Benghazi, Libya, and Mayy El Sheikh from Cairo.
Labels: Political Realities Middle East, Social-Cultural Deviations, Traditions, United States, Values
Tensions in Lebanon have been rising over the conflict in Syria.
A
senior Lebanese intelligence official was among at least eight people
killed in a massive car bomb attack in central Beirut, state media say.
Wissam al-Hassan was said to be close to opposition leader
Saad Hariri, a leading critic of the government in neighbouring Syria.
No group has claimed Friday's attack, which was condemned by Damascus. Dozens of people were injured.
Tensions in Lebanon have been rising as a result of the Syrian conflict.
Friday's attack was the deadliest in Beirut since 2008.
It occurred in the mainly Christian district of Ashrafiya, in
a busy street close to the headquarters of the Mr Hariri's 14 March
coalition.
Wissam al-Hassan
- Head of the intelligence branch of Lebanon's Internal Security Forces
- Sunni Muslim born in the northern city of Tripoli in 1965
- Responsible for the security of former PM Rafik Hariri
- Viewed as being close to the Hariris and the opposition 14 March coalition
- Responsible for the August arrest of pro-Syrian politician and ex-information minister Michel Samaha
Some 14 March politicians have accused the Syrian government of being behind the bombing.
However Syrian Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi called it a "cowardly terrorist act".
Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati said the government was
trying to identify the perpetrators and said they would be punished.
The blast set many cars ablaze and destroyed the facades of nearby buildings.
Ronnie Chatah, who lives nearby, told the BBC: "The building shook and it echoed throughout the neighbourhood."
Hospitals across the city have reported large numbers of wounded, and called for people to donate blood.
More on This Story
Labels: Conflict, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Middle East, Political Realities Middle East, Societal Failures, Syria
U.S., Israeli forces to stage largest military drill in show of unity aimed at Iran
Thursday, 18 October 2012
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Israeli Defense
Minister Ehud Barak greet Israeli soldiers after a joint news conference
during a visit to the Iron Dome defense system launch site in Ashkelon.
(Reuters)
By AFP
Washington
The United States and Israel are set to launch a major military
exercise in a show of unity aimed at Iran, despite friction between
American and Israeli leaders over how to counter Tehran’s nuclear
ambitions.
The air defense drills, dubbed “Austere Challenge 2012,” will unfold
next week and last about three weeks, with 3,500 U.S. troops and 1,000
Israeli forces taking part, officers said Wednesday.
“This is the largest exercise in the history of the longstanding
military relationship between the U.S. and Israel,” said Lieutenant
General Craig Franklin, 3rd Air Force Commander, who is overseeing the
drill along with his Israeli counterpart, Brigadier General Nitzan
Nuriel.
“This exercise will improve the
cooperative missile defense of Israel and will promote regional
stability and help ensure a military edge,” Franklin told reporters in a
teleconference.
But the drill is about more than missile defenses.
The elaborate exercise takes place at a politically-charged moment, amid
speculation about a possible Israeli pre-emptive attack on Iran, a
hotly-contested U.S. presidential election weeks away and parliamentary
polls expected in Israel within a few months.
The drill’s “scenario is to deal with threats from all fronts,” Nuriel, the Israeli commander, told the same phone conference.
“Anybody can get any type of message he wants from this exercise. The
fact we are practicing together and working together is a strong message
by itself.”
Although Israel faces rocket attacks out of Gaza and missile threats
from Syria and Hezbollah militants in Lebanon, the main worry for the
Jewish state is Iran’s growing arsenal of ballistic missiles.
In a report this year to Congress, the Pentagon warned that Iran’s
missiles could hit Israel and Eastern European countries, including an
extended-range version of the Shahab-3 and a medium-range ballistic
missile with a range of 2,000 kilometers.
The missile threat, combined with the crisis over Iran’s disputed
nuclear program, prompted Israeli authorities in August to test a SMS
public alert system designed to warn the population of an imminent
attack.
In the works for two years, the joint exercise originally was scheduled
for April but was postponed at Israel’s request, without an official
explanation.
The drill highlights U.S.-Israeli cooperation just as President Barack
Obama seeks to deflect criticism from his Republican rival Mitt Romney,
who has accused him of neglecting America’s ally and rebuffing Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Obama and Netanyahu disagree over the urgency of the perceived threat
posed by Iran, with the U.S. president favoring more time for diplomacy
and international sanctions to rein in Tehran’s uranium enrichment work.
Netanyahu has publicly aired his differences with the Obama
administration over the Iran issue, scolding Washington for failing to
set its own “red lines” that would trigger military action against
Tehran.
The West believes Iran is secretly pursuing plans to develop a nuclear
weapons capability, but Tehran insists its program is designed purely
for peaceful purposes to generate electricity.
Labels: Conflict, Iran, Israel, Nuclear Technology, Political Realities Middle East, Traditions, United States
U.N. rights chief says Syria must not become new Bosnia; Assad troops shell key town
Thursday, 18 October 2012
Smoke rises from buildings in Damascus' southwest neighbourhood of Kfar Sousa, following shelling by government forces. (AFP)
By Al Arabiya with Agencies
The top United Nations human rights official said the situation
in Syria was reminiscent of Bosnia’s sectarian war and called on world
powers on Thursday to unite in trying to halt the bloodshed, as Syrian
fighter jets blasted the rebel-held town of Maaret al-Numan in Idlib
province.
As many as 144 people have been by the fire of Syrian forces across the
country, Al Arabiya reported, citing activists at the Syrian Observatory
for Human Rights.
“The memories of what happened in Bosnia and Herzegovina should be
sufficiently fresh to warn us all of the danger of allowing Syria to
descend into an all-out sectarian conflict,” U.N. High Commissioner for
Human Rights Navi Pillay said.
“It should not take something as
drastic as Srebrenica to shake the world into taking serious action to
stop this type of conflict,” she told reporters, according to Reuters.
The July 1995 massacre in Srebrenica was the worst on European soil
since World War Two. Dutch U.N. peacekeepers abandoned what had been
designated a U.N. safe haven to advancing Bosnian Serb forces who then
killed 8,000 Muslim men and boys and bulldozed their corpses into pits.
Pillay, a former U.N. war crimes judge, said both sides in the Syrian
conflict may have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity.
“The indiscriminate use of heavy weaponry by government forces to
destroy large swathes of cities such as Homs and Aleppo is inexcusable,
as is the use of huge bombs by extremist opposition groups which kill
and maim civilians as well as military targets,” she added.
Meanwhile, at least 44 people
were killed in air strikes on the Syrian rebel-held town of Maaret
al-Numan on Thursday, rescue workers told an AFP journalist at the
scene.
“We have recovered 44 corpses from under the rubble,” one rescue worker said.
He said the air force’s bombs had destroyed two residential buildings
and a mosque, where many women and children were taking refuge.
In a makeshift field hospital, the AFP journalist saw 12 corpses wrapped in white sheets, and plastic bags marked “body parts.”
“At the moment it seems only three people survived the attack, including
a two-year-old child,” said medic Jaffar Sharhoub. “He survived in the
arms of his dead father.”
A resident who spoke to AFP on condition of anonymity said several of
the dead had just returned from Kafr Nabal, a town west of Maaret
al-Numan. “They thought the danger had passed.”
Several fighter jets flew over Maaret al-Numan and the surrounding area throughout Thursday morning.
They made short dives to drop at least 10 bombs on the town and its
eastern outskirts, near the Wadi Deif army base which is under rebel
siege.
Strategically located on the Damascus-Aleppo highway, Maaret al-Numan was seized by rebels early last week.
A suicide bomber on a motorbike, meanwhile, struck near the interior
ministry in the Syrian capital on Thursday without causing any
casualties, a security source told AFP.
He detonated his explosives in the southwestern neighborhood of Kfar
Sousa, some 300 meters (yards) from the ministry. The district is home
to several branches of the security services, the source added.
Not far from Maaret al-Numan, rebel fighters on Thursday launched an
intense mortar bombardment of the army base at Wadi Deif which they have
been besieging for the past week.
Some 250 regime troops are holed up in the base, along with large amounts of ammunition, rebels told AFP.
Wadi Deif is located on an important pipeline that supplies fuel to the
northern city of Aleppo, Syria’s second-largest and theatre of combat
since July 20.
The Observatory said that on Thursday fighter jets bombed Maarhtat and Bsida, where the helicopter was downed the day before.
In Aleppo, the military pounded rebel-held neighborhoods of Shaar and
Sukkari, as well as two nearby villages, the Observatory said.
The ruling party’s mouthpiece al-Baath newspaper said on Thursday the
army focused its operations “on the districts of Sakhur and Shaar...and
destroyed several canons and vehicles mounted with machineguns.”
In the central province of Homs, the military bombed the town of Qusayr,
another opposition stronghold which government troops have besieged for
several days, said the Observatory.
Also in Homs, bombing killed three children, including one whose head
was blown off, in the central town of Houla, near to a village where at
least 108 people died a massacre in May, most of them women and
children.
In the eastern province of Deir Ezzor, “a group of armed terrorists
carried out a bomb attack at dawn...against a gas pipeline linking Deir
Ezzor to Palmyra, and an oil pipeline linking the Omar to Teim
fields...causing a fire to break out,” said state news agency SANA.
A Ministry of Petroleum source cited by SANA said the pumping of fuel was interrupted temporarily, and the fire was put out.
Labels: Political Realities Middle East, Societal Failures, Syria, United Nations
New W. intelligence: Syrian rebels don’t have the numbers to win
DEBKAfile
Exclusive Report
October 15, 2012, 9:20 AM (GMT+02:00)
Israel's MI Chief Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi on Syrian Golan border
The revised estimates compiled by US and French intelligence agencies
on the relative strength of Syrian government and rebel forces have
given Washington and Arab capitals backing the Syrian opposition pause.
The Obama administration has built its policies around an estimated
70,000 rebel fighters, whereas the revised figure, according to debkafile’s
intelligence sources, appears to be less than half - around 30,000.
With some 3,000 jihadis, Al Qaeda-linked groups make up around
one-tenth of total rebel strength.
Officials in Washington and Paris are trying to play down the revised
estimates because it throws out the basic premise of the Obama
administration’s Middle East policy that Bashar Assad can’t last more
than six months against the rebel offensive. US military experts now
admit, albeit without attribution, that the overall balance of strength –
and not just the numbers - has radically changed in the Assad regime’s
favor, due to direct Iranian military input: Military advisers of the elite Al Qods Brigades are
conducting crash combat courses for the 70,000- strong pro-Assad
Alawite militia and sections of the Syrian army still loyal to the
ruler.
This qualitative injection into Assad’s military sources will substantially extend the life expectancy of his regime.
For now, US President Barack Obama does not appear to be affected by
the new figures or about to change his firm position against direct
Western or regional intervention in Syria. He is still pressuring
Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan to keep a lid on the escalating Turkish-Syrian hostilities.
He is also holding Saudi Arabia and Qatar back from supplying the
rebels with heavy anti-tank and anti-air weapons for withstanding Syrian
assaults.
At the same time, the situation in Syria is incendiary enough to shoot
into an unforeseen direction in the three weeks remaining up until the
US presidential election and may force the president’s hand. The Syrian
crisis will certainly figure large in his debate with Republican
candidate Mitt Romney Tuesday, Oct. 16, along with the security issues
raised by the murder of four US diplomats in Libya by al Qaeda on Sept.
11.
Our sources in Paris report that President France Hollande’s take on
the new intelligence estimates counters the Obama position. He is urging
direct intervention in Syria for the creation of safe havens for
opposition forces and refugees, a no-fly zone and a supply of heavy
weapons to give the insurgents a chance to retilt the tide of the war in
their favor. He is galvanized by reports from the battlefield that the
rebels face serious reverses in the face of the Assad army’s numerical
superiority and Iranian, Russian and Hizballah aid. This could lead to a
hopeless stalemate in the Syrian crisis, which the Syrian ruler would
use to grind down the opposition’s strength and reassert his authority,
helped along by the bitter divisions in Syrian opposition ranks.
For now, Israel’s leaders are lining up publicly with the Obama
prediction of a foreshortened Assad reign and overestimate of rebel
strength and prospects. They continue to assert that the Syrian ruler’s
days are numbered. Military Intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi is
more reserved. During a visit IDF forces ranged on the Golan on Oct. 3,
he spoke cautiously about “the eroding authority of the Syrian regime.”Labels: Political Realities Middle East, Revolution, Syria, Terrorism, Turkey, United States
Why has it taken Britain eight years to extradite Abu Hamza?
British extradition proceedings against the militant cleric Abu
Hamza, wanted in the US on terror charges, began in 2004. But only this
week has an end to the legal process become visible.
By
Ben Quinn, Correspondent /
September 28, 2012
In
this January 2004 file photo, self-styled cleric Abu Hamza leads his
followers in prayer in a street outside Finsbury Park Mosque, on the
first anniversary of its closure by anti-terrorism police, London.
John D McHugh/AP/File
Eight years after the first steps to extradite to the US one of
Britain’s
most notorious extremists, that legal saga is likely to come to an end
next week should he fail in a last-ditch legal gambit to prevent his
removal.
Yet even before the latest delay, legal deliberations over the fate of Abu Hamza – originally arrested in 2004 on a
US extradition warrant for allegedly organizing a militant training camp in
Oregon and assisting in kidnappings in
Yemen – had long tested the patience of many, as the case wound its way through British and European Courts.
While not mentioning the case specifically, none other than the most senior judge in
England and
Wales suggested Thursday that he was as frustrated as anyone.
The
Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, said it was “a real source of fury” to
him that cases should take as long as eight years to go through the
courts as different grounds for appeal are attempted, and that there was
a “great public interest” in allegations concerning terrorism being
dealt with swiftly.
The
comments by Lord Judge were welcomed by MPs as well as news outlets
that have focused on the cost to the tax-payer of providing legal aid to
Hamza and channeled anger at perceived foot-dragging by the
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which ruled back in 2008 that extradition could not take place until it examined the case.
Hamza
had argued that his extradition to the US, where he could face a life
sentence in a supermax prison if convicted, would run afoul of European
human rights prohibitions against torture and ill treatment.
Julian
Knowles, a barrister specializing in extradition law, says “a lot of
the problems that have arisen here, and which have required litigation,
are to do with just how savage the US sentencing system is and that gave
the basis for Hamza to go to the European Court and say: ‘I will be
held, if I am convicted, in solitary confinement, for the rest of my
life in very harsh conditions, with probably no possibility of parole. I
am a disabled man and have no arms and there will be very little
granted to me to alleviate that.' ”
In April, the
Strasbourg
court ruled there would be "no violation" of the rights of Hamza and a
number of others if they were put on trial in the US. And on Monday, the
ECHR rejected the men's appeal, clearing the way for a possible end to
the long legal saga.
After failing in
Europe,
Hamza is making a final stand in England, where judges issued an
interim injunction Wednesday blocking the extradition and granting a
court hearing for an appeal. Hamza’s legal team must show that there is
some new and compelling factor that has not been already considered by
previous court hearings.
“This case has taken a long time because the [ECHR] is very under
resourced and has a backlog of cases, so by the time you go there you
are building in up to a three-, four-year delay,” he says, adding that
the extradition proceedings under English law also made the case a
lengthy one.
Knowles also says that Hamza's eight-year saga is not
a sign that Britain's extradition system is too weighted in favor of
individuals fighting against their removal. It's just the opposite, he
says.
“The law is overwhelmingly in favor of the government
seeking extradition. Very little has to be shown for the US to seek
extradition, and in fact the controversy recently has been about whether
it has been too easy for the US to get people from here as compared
with if the UK was asking the US, where the hurdle is much higher.”
The sheer complexity of the Hamza case was also an issue.
The case's outcome is one that may have a lasting legacy in Europe.
The
precedent set by the ECHR's ruling may turn out to be a green light
across Europe for future extraditions to US supermax prisons, as the
court officially has jurisdiction over 47 states across the continent
(though
Russia
often ignores its rulings). The ruling is not apt to affect extradition
to the US in death penalty cases, as Europe's opposition to capital
punishment remains entrenched.
Symbolic importance
If
Hamza's last-ditch effort fails, extradition is likely to quickly
follow for a figure who has been one of the most striking encapsulations
of what many Britons regard as the face of
Al Qaeda inspired extremism.
Security experts emphasize the symbolic importance of the case of the hook-handed, one-eyed radical cleric, who took charge of
London’s
Finsbury Park Mosque in the 1990s and used it as a base to persuade young Muslims to take up the cause of holy war.
“In
terms of his strategic relevance, he is no longer an active figure in
terms of jihadi terrorism in general but he somehow represents the kind
of threat that the UK has been facing since 2001,” says Tina Soria, an
analyst specializing in counter-terrorism and Security and London’s
Royal United Services Institute think-tank.
“His
extradition would mark the end of one very important chapter in
counter-terrorist narrative in the UK and how effective it has been in,
hopefully, disrupting terrorist activities.”
“He represented a
significant player in terms of radicalization, and the kind of threat
that the UK was facing up until, maybe, 2007 and 2008 but we have seen
an evolution in the terrorist threat and we of course now that kind of
ideological message is equally circulating online.”
Labels: Britain, Islamism, Justice, Political Realities Middle East
