The Mahmoud and Robert Show comes to Afghanistan

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates traded insults on Wednesday in Kabul. Gates accused Iran of claiming to support the Karzai government in Kabul but of playing a 'double game' and secretly giving aid to the Taliban. Ahmadinejad complained that the US fostered Sunni radicalism in the 1980s as part of its struggle to expel the Soviets from Afghanistan, and now had no right to complain about radicalism and terrorism in the region.

In this exchange, Ahmadinejad surely won on points. Gates's allegation of substantial Iranian support for the hyper-Sunni Shiite-killing Taliban is implausible on the face of it, and makes Gates look silly in regional eyes.

Russia Today reports on the tiff:



The dispute is particularly unfortunate, since the US and Iran largely have the same goals and friends in Afghanistan, and the Obama administration should have been talking to Iran all along about their overlapping interests in that country.

End/ (Not Continued)
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Abbas Reported to have Withdrawn from Israeli-Palestinian talks; Obama Mideast Policy Sabotaged by Netanyahu

Obama's Mideast policy lies in tatters this morning and US credibility as a broker of any future settlement was deeply wounded.

Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League, announced Wednesday that he had been informed by Palestine Authority president Mahmoud Abbas that the latter has pulled out of indirect talks with Israel. Late Wednesday, the Arab League itself reversed its earlier cautious endorsement of the proximity talks, recommending that that support be dropped.

Israeli colonization of Palestinian territory lies at the heart of the Mideast conflict. It isn't a complicated issue in the law, since Israel's actions are clearly illegal and unethical to boot. But might makes right and Israel is the most powerful country in the Middle East, so all the protests on legal and humanitarian grounds have amounted to nothing.

The talks were likely deliberately sabotaged by Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who had his Interior Minister announce the construction of 1600 new households in Occupied East Jerusalem the day before they were scheduled to begin. In fact, Israel is actively planning 50,000 further housing units on occupied Palestinian territory. US Vice President Joe Biden had come to kick off the process with visits to Netanyahu and Abbas, but he has now been sent home empty-handed by Netanyahu's sheer effrontery.

Netanyahu's far rightwing coalition includes many members of the Knesset or Israeli parliament who are bound and determined to colonize every last inch of the Palestinian West Bank and to reduce the Palestinians to landless beggars. Were the prime minister to make too many concessions to the Obama administration, some of them might well pull out of his government, and it could easily fall. Netanyahu is convinced that the Clinton administration undermined him the last time he was prime minister, and he is determined not to allow that to happen again. So acted as though he was complying with US demands for a settlement freeze, but exempted part of Palestinian territory from the freeze. Then shortly before proximity talks were to begin he had his Interior Ministry announce further colonization, knowing that it would complicate or (better) nix the talks. Netanyahu knew that if he was pressed on the announcement, he could get himself off the hook by apologizing for his flat-footed minister's poor timing. Biden did not buy this lame shadow play and neither will anyone else with any common sense.

Since 1949, the US has given Israel over $100 billion in direct aid, and the indirect forms of aid are orders of magnitude greater. That the vice president of the United States (and therefore the president himself) were ambushed by the prime minister in this arrogant and nearly sadistic manner raises the severest questions about why US taxpayer money should flow in such enormous amounts to a country that is actively and on a massive scale violating the Hague Agreement of 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 on the treatment of populations by occupiers. And this at a time when the US budget deficit is ballooning and there is not enough government money to take care of the needs of US citizens. The argument that Israel is a security asset for the United States is undermined if the Israelis are provoking enmity toward the United States among 1.5 billion Muslims by their inexorable annexation of Palestinian land and daily oppression of the Palestinian people.

Biden took small bits of revenge on Netanyahu, such as going on Aljazeera English from the Occupied West Bank and denouncing the Netanyahu government's plans to expand its colonies on Palestinian territory as "destabilizing."



Obama is in real danger of seeing his allies lose respect for the United States once they see that Israel can treat him in this humiliating way with impunity. The security implications for the US are enormous. Many European allies feel strongly that Israel is an aggressor state in the region, and when Obama asks them for help in the fight against al-Qaeda, they may feel that Washington's coddling of Israeli colonialism produced much of the radicalism that they are now asked to spend blood and treasure combating. Moreover, many leaders may be emboldened to treat Obama and Biden just as Netanyahu did, if the latter faces no consequences for his impudence.

End/ (Not Continued)
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Israel Humiliates Biden, Announces Further Colonization on Eve of US-Brokered Talks

The far rightwing government of Binyamin Netanyahu in Israel majorly sandbagged Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday, demonstrating once again that it has not the slightest interest in pursuing a just peace with the Palestinian people or in trading a cessation of its colonization of the Palestinian West Bank for a comprehensive peace with the Arab world.

Biden went to the Mideast to kick off negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and reassured the latter of undying US support for them. On Chris Matthews' Hardball, Biden explained that when you marry someone, you tell them you love them, but that does not remove the obligation to keep saying it years later. Apparently, however, Washington is henpecked by Tel Aviv to the point almost of being a battered spouse. In response to Biden's loyal support for Israel over decades, the Likud-led government kicked him in the teeth. Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai abruptly announced that he would build 1600 new households (for 8,000 people?) in a part of the Occupied West Bank that the Israeli government had annexed to Jerusalem District. It was precisely such new and increasing Israeli building on Palestinian territory that had led Palestine Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to reject negotiations and to threaten to resign. The announcement put in doubt whether the negotiations would go forward, and made Biden and the United States government look like fools.

Joe Biden should have turned around and left the country. Instead, he showed up 90 minutes late to a state dinner hosted by Netanyahu and dared actually directly complain about the way he was treated, "I condemn the decision," he said, calling it "precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now and runs counter to the constructive discussions that I've had here in Israel."

Aljazeera English reports on Biden's visit and the Israeli announcement of new colonization measures:



The Netanyahu government had announced a settlement freeze in much of the West Bank for 8 months, but does not include the areas it unilaterally annexed to the district of Jerusalem as West Bank territory. Nor is the 'settlement freeze' really any such thing, since there are plans to expand housing in existing colonies on the West Bank.

This controversy comes on the heels of demonstrations in al-Khalil/ Hebron and Jerusalem by Palestinians outraged by the unilateral Israeli designation of the Tombs of the Patriarchs and the tomb of Rachel, in Palestinian West Bank territory, as Israeli heritage sites. In Palestinian experience, such Israeli claims often precede Israeli annexation. While US mass media did not cover the demonstrations in any detail (much reporting from Israel in US media is by dual citizens or by reporters who have served or have children serving in the Israeli army), they are a big story in the Middle East, and the creeping Israeli expulsion of Palestinians from East Jerusalem is guaranteed to enrage the world's 1.5 billion Muslims and result in violence.

The Obama administration came into office determined to restart the negotiations between Abbas and the Israelis, with the aim of achieving a two-state solution. After over a year of meetings and carrying messages and cajoling, the patient-as-Job special envoy George Mitchell finally convinced Mahmoud Abbas to agree to indirect negotiations with Israel. For the past year, Abbas had refused to talk, on the grounds that the Israelis were actively colonizing the West Bank and so taking away the very territory that was subject to negotiation. How do you parlay with someone who is stealing from you at that very moment?

The Oslo process of the 1990s, initiated by Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, had aimed at establishing two states side by side, Israel and Palestine. Neither the Likud Party of Netanyahu nor Hamas among the Palestinians wanted to see that process succeed. Likud wanted all of the former British Mandate of Palestine to be permanently under Israeli control, including the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, which Israel occupied in 1967 and which have a stateless, rights-less Palestinian population of over 4 million persons. The Israelis have steadily and determinedly usurped Palestinian territory throughout the last nearly a century, and by now it is highly unlikely that what is left of the Palestinian West Bank and the besieged, half-starving Gaza Strip can plausibly be cobbled together into a 'state.'



In my view, it doesn't really matter if Netanyahu's slap in the face to Biden derails the proposed indirect talks. The Likud-led government has no intention of allowing a Palestinian state, and there is now no place to put one. Israel-Palestine has unalterably entered the era of Apartheid (actually something worse), and it will spell both the end of dreams of peace in our generation, and probably over time the end of Israel as Netanyahu's generation knew it. The Palestinians cannot be left stateless (the legal estate of slaves as well as of Jews under Nazi rule, i.e. people with no legal rights) forever. If they can't have Palestinian citizenship, then they'll have to have Israeli citizenship. The future of Israel-Palestine is likely to become a multi-ethnic, multi-religious state like Lebanon. Ironically, it is Netanyahu who is in no small measure responsible for this likely outcome, the opposite of the one he aspires to.

Israelis claim a 'birthright' to do things like colonize Palestinian territory, based on romantic-nationalist reworkings of biblical narratives. But Canaan was populated for millenia before some Canaanite tribes adopted the new religion of Judaism, and it was also ruled, as Palestine, for centuries by Romans and Greeks, and for 1400 years by Muslims. The Palestinian Jews converted to Christianity and then to Islam, so they are cousins of the European Jews (who appear to have gone to Europe voluntarily as male merchants around 800 CE,, where they took local wives). European Jews are about half European by parentage and all European by cultural heritage, and it is no more natural that they be in geographical Palestine than that they be in Europe (where nearly two-thirds of their mothers were from and about a third of their fathers). From a Middle Eastern point of view, European Jews planted in British Mandate Palestine by the British Empire were no different from the million colons or European colonists brought to Algeria while it was under French rule from 1830-1962. (Algeria had been ruled in antiquity by Rome, and the French considered themselves heirs of the Roman Empire, so it was natural that people from Marseilles should return to 'their' territory. Romantic nationalism, whether French or Zionist, always has the same shape). I don't predict the same fate for Jewish Israelis as befell the French colons. Rather, I think they are likely to more and more resemble in their position the Maronite Catholics of Lebanon-- i.e. powerful and formerly dominant population-wise, but increasingly challenged by other rising communities.



End/ (Not Continued)
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Ahmadinejad Calls 9/11 a 'Big Lie'; Says Collapse of Zionist Regime will Herald Return of Christ, Mahdi

As I reported in January, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has begun taking the line that the September 11, 2001, attacks by al-Qaeda on New York and Washington were actually stage-managed by US "Intelligence," to create a pretext for American invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. This view is not widely shared among Iranians or Iranian politicians. Iran itself lost nationals in Afghanistan and Pakistan to assassination by al-Qaeda or the Taliban, and Shiite Hazaras in Afghanistan were massacred by the same forces. Then-president Mohammad Khatami expressed warm condolences to the US after the attacks, noting that Iran had suffered from terrorism as well. Iranian young people held candle light vigils for the victims.

Ahmadinejad's recent speech to the Iranian Intelligence Ministry reiterates this 'truther' crackpot conspiracy theory about 9/11. The speech also demonstrates a Manichaean vision of history, in which the virtuous Islamic Republic is ranged against the forces of capitalism, which he says was invented by Zionists and which is intrinsically belligerent, war-like, exploitative and genocidal. (This analysis of the capitalist system as fomenting aggression and war comes not from Shiite theology but from Lenin's analysis of the outbreak of World War I, as a capitalist war over control of markets.) Ahmadinejad's looney assertion that capitalism was invented by 'Zionists' is ridiculous, since capitalism developed in early modern and modern Europe and Zionism as a movement did not amount to anything until the late nineteenth century at the earliest. But the trope of an essentialist connection between Jews, capitalism and exploitation is a commonplace in the literature of anti-Semitism, and is probably the origin of this bizarre allegation.

Ancient Iran developed the first monotheistic religion, Zoroastrianism, which holds that history is the unfolding of a battle between Ahura Mazda, God, and the evil Ahriman, a satan figure. The prophet of the new religion was Zarathustra, whom the Greeks called Zoroaster. The archaic language of the Old Persian (which is close to Sanskrit) of Gathas, his scripture, probably places him in the 1200s BC, though there are disputes and some date him hundreds of years later. Although some speak of Zoroastrianism as dualistic, Ahura Mazda is more powerful than Ahriman and will defeat him in the fullness of time. Human beings, the creation of Ahura Mazda, play a role in determining how soon the victory comes. When they lie or commit immoral acts, they aid and abet Ahriman. When they tell the truth and are virtuous, they aid Ahura Mazda and hasten the advent of the Saoshyant or promised future messiah. Zoroastrianism invented concepts such as the Last Days, the resurrection of the dead, and an eternal afterlife.

Although Iran converted to Islam gradually (and mostly willingly) after the seventh century CE, cultural influences of Zoroastrianism are visible in Iranian Shiite Islam. Indeed, Zoroastrian ideas probably influenced Judaism and the writing of the Bible during the Babylonian exile, as Iran came to rule Babylonia. And since the Parthian dynasty of Iran had a presence in Palestine shortly before the advent of Christianity, it is not impossible that Iranian themes influenced that religion, as well.

Ahmadinejad's speech not only presents a dualistic war between good Iran and an evil, Ahriman-like United States (champion of oppressive capitalism), but also refers to the Iranian president's emphasis on the Shiite Promised One or Imam Mahdi. He refers to Iran's intelligence operatives as the 'unknown soldiers' of the 'Lord of the Age' (i.e. the Mahdi), and praises them for capturing Abdul Malik Rigi, the leader of the Sunni Baluch terrorist group Jundullah (Army of God), which has attacked mosques and other sites in the Iranian province of Baluchistan and Sistan in the southeast. Baluch are Sunnis and many feel oppressed under Persian, Shiite rule; the province is the poorest in Iran. Rigi's televised confession alleged that he was recruited by high-level CIA and other US intelligence officials and did not strike me as credible as to its details, but it appears to have been widely believed by the Iranian public and to have hurt the image among them of the Obama administration, according to Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett.

Not only is Ahmadinejad the Iranian equivalent of a truther, he is also the mirror image of the Christian Zionists. That brand of evangelicals in the US believes that the establishment of Israel throughout geographical Palestine, i.e. the complete annexation of the West Bank and perhaps the expulsion of its Palestinian residents, will hasten the return of Christ.

Ahmadinejad holds the opposite. It is in his view the collapse of what he calls the Zionist regime and the emergence of a state for all Palestinians, whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim, that will provoke the Promised One to come. In Shiite Islam, the promised one is the return of the 12th Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, the lineal descendant of the Prophet Muhammad. In Muslim folk belief it is sometimes alleged that when the Mahdi comes, Jesus will also return, and they will join forces to prepare the world for the Judgment Day. When he was in Damascus on 25 February, Ahmadinejad spoke thusly when meeting with Syrian Muslim clergymen, as broadcast on the official Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network 1 radio channel that day, and translated by the USG Open Source Center:

'The day on which the Lord of the Age (REFERENCE to the 12th Shiite imam) and Jesus (peace be upon him) will come and spread monotheism and justice in the whole world, is close. Understand this. The final move has begun. God willing, with the destruction of the Zionist regime, the prophets' mission will be fulfilled. Today, the settings of the stage for the resurrection of Jesus and endeavors to prepare the ground for the re-appearance of Imam Mahdi, are factors which make up the axis of unity of all those who have faith in the holy prophets.'

Because there will be a lot of propaganda around all this, I want to underline that Ahmadinejad did not then and has never called for the violent destruction of Israelis or Israel. He rather expects the 'Zionist regime' peacefully to collapse, as the Soviet regime in Moscow did. It is that peaceful collapse that will apparently in his view herald the return of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi, and of Jesus Christ.

Here is the USG Open Source Center translation of Ahmadinejad's speech of March 6, in which he again says that September 11 was a plot of US intelligence services:

Iran: President Ahmadinezhad Says 11 September Attacks 'Big Lie'
IRNA
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Document Type: OSC Translated Text . . .


Tehran, 6 March: President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad had said: The arrest of

Abdolmalek Rigi (the leader of rebel Sunni group Jondollah) has humiliated the intelligence services of the US, Britain, and the Zionist regime [by his televised confession that he was working in tandem with the CIA to blow up mosques and other sites in Iranian Baluchistan -JC].

Ahmadinezhad, who was speaking at a meeting with the minister, deputy ministers, managers, and personnel of the Intelligence Ministry, congratulated the auspicious birthday anniversary of the prophet of light and compassion, His Holiness Muhammad al-Mustafa (peace be upon him) and the birthday anniversary of Imam Sadeq (Sixth Shi'i imam) (peace be upon him), IRNA reported on Saturday (6 March), quoting the presidential website. He said that the Intelligence Ministry's personnel are the best collection of Hezbollahi (members of Party of God; meaning pious) forces and added: Today, the Islamic Republic of Iran's intelligence system is the most virtuous intelligence system in the world.

The President said that the Lord of the Age's Unknown Soldiers (intelligence forces) have a divine and sacred mission. He said: The Intelligence Ministry should be the most coordinated, organized, powerful, and flowing (Persian -- Ravantarin) organization in the country.

The President said that the purpose of man's creation was to establish a world government based on monotheism and justice. He added: Throughout history, devils fought against prophets and pious people. The climax of man's fight against devils is taking place in our time. Today, the devils show that they are gathered at the forefront of the world arrogance.

He added: Man's nature is a divine and heavenly one. When man's thought and nature are limited to worldly affairs, then he will have no option but to fall.

The President said that capitalist thoughts have resulted in plundering, bullying, and the killing of mankind's essence. He said: Liberal democracy is the result of a fight between power and wealth. The US-led world arrogance's front against the Islamic Republic is the climax of the fight between the monotheism front and devils.
The head of the Supreme National Security Council said that all vices in history have gathered in the arrogance front. He said: The crimes committed by the world arrogant are unprecedented in history. Today, the heaviest massacre and terrorist actions in the world are carried out by their (the arrogant of the world) accomplices by raising the flag of human rights.

Ahmadinezhad said that the materialist thoughts were challenged and Marxism was destroyed after the emergence of the Islamic Republic. He said: Thanks to the grace of God, the capitalist system founded by the Zionists has reached the end of its path.

The president added: US invasions and NATO's military expedition in the region are merely aimed at saving liberal democracy and the capitalist school of thought.

He said that the September 11 attacks and the demolition of the Twin Towers in the US were a complex scenario carried out by the intelligence (Persian -- Eqdam-e Ettela'ati). He said: The 11 September event was a big lie. It paved the way for the military expedition to Afghanistan under the pretext of fighting with terrorism.

Ahmadinezhad referred to the arrest of Abodlmalek Rigi by the Soldiers of the Lord of the Age (the Iranian intelligence forces) and said: The arrest of this terrorist bandit has humiliated the intelligence services of the US, Britain, and the Zionist regime. . .

(Description of Source: Tehran IRNA in Persian -- Official state-run online news agency, headed as of January 2010 by Ali Akbar Javanfekr, former media adviser to President Ahmadinezhad. URL:http://www.irna.ir)


End/ (Not Continued)
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Petition to Save Palestinians' Mamilla Cemetery from the Simon Wiesenthal Center's plans to Build over It

Received from the Mamilla Campaign, which notes:

THE SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER AND THE GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL ARE BUILDING A “MUSEUM OF TOLERANCE” ON CENTURIES-OLD MUSLIM GRAVES.

History - Since the Seventh Century, the Ma’man Allah (Mamilla) cemetery has been the most important Moslem burial site in Jerusalem. It contains the remains of leaders of Saladin’s army, Muslim scholars, and important Jerusalem families going back at least one thousand years. It is a well delineated 33 acre site that was in use until 1948 and was fastidiously respected by the Ottoman rulers and the British Mandate. It contains tens of thousands of graves in several layers as well as gravestones, monuments and the two-thousand year old “Mamilla pool.”

and proposes:

PUBLIC PETITION TO STOP DESECRATION OF MAMILLA MUSLIM CEMETERY IN JERUSALEM BY ISRAELI AUTHORITIES AND THE SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER

(Sign the petition here).

We demand that the competent Israeli authorities act:

1.To immediately halt further construction of the Simon Wiesenthal Center "Museum of Tolerance" on part of the Mamilla Cemetery site in Jerusalem;

2.To declare the entire historic site of the Mamilla Cemetery an antiquity, to be preserved and protected henceforth by its rightful and appropriate custodians, the Muslim Waqf (public endowment) authorities in Jerusalem;

3.To recover and rebury where they were originally found all human remains removed from Mamilla Cemetery, in coordination with the competent Muslim authorities in Jerusalem; and,

4.To document and reveal to families who claim their ancestors are buried in Mamilla, or to their representatives, the whereabouts of human remains and artifacts, as well as archaeological fragments and monuments exhumed in the construction.
-----------------------------------------------------

Here is a summary of the Basic Facts regarding Mamilla Cemetery.

THE SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER AND THE GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL ARE BUILDING A “MUSEUM OF TOLERANCE” ON CENTURIES-OLD MUSLIM GRAVES.
History - Since the Seventh Century, the Ma’man Allah (Mamilla) cemetery has been the most important Moslem burial site in Jerusalem. It contains the remains of leaders of Saladin’s army, Muslim scholars, and important Jerusalem families going back at least one thousand years. It is a well delineated 33 acre site that was in use until 1948 and was fastidiously respected by the Ottoman rulers and the British Mandate. It contains tens of thousands of graves in several layers as well as gravestones, monuments and the two-thousand year old “Mamilla pool.”

SINCE 1948 – After the 1948 War, the site was expropriated by the Israeli Custodian of Absentee Property. The Israeli Religious Affairs Ministry originally recognized the great importance of the site to the Muslim community. However, the traditional caretakers of the cemetery, the Trustees of the Islamic Endowment (the waqf), were not allowed to maintain and protect the cemetery and it was neglected and vandalized. In the 1960’s, half of it was turned into an “Independence Park.” A parking lot was built over another part of the cemetery in 1964. A school, playing field and an underground parking garage were built on it. During the garage excavations, human remains from exposed graves were seen scattered about the construction site. During this time Palestinians protested these desecrations with appeals to the Israeli mayors of Jerusalem, petitions to UNESCO and public demonstrations. At present, only a fraction of the original cemetery is identifiable, with few grave markers remaining visible.

The “Museum of Tolerance” – The Jerusalem Municipality, ignoring public protests, deeded part of the cemetery to the Simon Wiesenthal Center of Los Angeles and in 2002, approved plans for the construction of the “Center for Human Dignity – Museum of Tolerence” on the site. Digging on the site, which began in 2005, has resulted in the exhumation of hundreds of graves and remains, some dating back to the 12th Century. The Chief Excavator for the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), Gideon Suleimani, issued a report and has attested in an affidavit to the fact that there are at least 2000 graves under the project site, in four layers, in addition to hundreds already exposed. He further attested to the intense pressure exerted on the IAA by the SWC and Israeli politicians and developers to approve construction on the site.

The Israeli Courts – Public outcry, including opposition to the location of the project at the Mamilla site by the Mayor of Jerusalem and other prominent Israelis, failed to halt the construction activity. Families whose ancestors lie buried at the site, together with others, sued in Israeli courts to stop the excavations. The complainants lost in the Israeli High Court in 2008. In ruling against the families the High Court relied upon the determination of a low level Muslim judge from Jaffa that the cemetery had been “desanctified” because of disuse. The judge, acting at the behest of the Israeli authorities, was convicted of fraud in the same year, and his ruling has since been overruled by the highest Islamic authorities in Israel.

Petition to the United Nations – A Petition For Urgent Action on Human Rights Violations by Israel: Desecration of the Ma’man Allah (Mamilla) Muslim Cemetery in the Holy City of Jerusalem was filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights with various United Nations agencies on Feb. 10, 2010, on behalf of sixty individual Palestinians whose ancestors are buried at Mamilla, and numerous Palestinian, Israeli and U.S. NGO’s who oppose the SWC project. The Petition cites numerous violations of International Law and requests the U.N.agencies to investigate and, ultimately, ask Israel and the SWC to stop excavations, recover remains, release remains to Islamic authorities for proper reburial and designate the entire Mamilla cemetery as a protected religious site. For the text of the petition and further information, go to: www.mamillacampaign.org.

A Public Petition - A public petition was drafted on behalf of all persons, regardless of ethnic or religious background or nationality, who are outraged by the desecration of the Mamilla burial site. When signed, it will be publicized and presented to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the U.N., the Israeli authorities, and the U.S. government, demanding the same relief requested in the formal petition to the U.N. bodies.

Thank you for all of your help

Sign the petition here.



End/ (Not Continued)
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Secular National Iraqi List of Allawi reported to have surged in Sunni Arab Provinces; Implications for Iran, US

Sunday's vote for a new parliament in Iraq on Sunday could result in two possible geopolitical futures for that country.

If the Iraqi National List of former interim prime minister Iyad Allawi did well enough to come to power, that would reorient Iraq radically, taking it back in some ways to 2002. Allawi's coalition is largely made up of Arab nationalists who would see Iran as a threat and would ally with Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt. Baghdad would go back to helping contain Iran. Sunni Arab radicalism would likely be tamped down. For Washington, it would be the best of all possible worlds-- a pro-American Iraqi government headed by a former CIA asset that is willing to help pressure Iran for the West. Internally, an Allawi government that depends heavily on Sunni Arab constituencies would find it difficult to compromise with the Kurds on the disputed province of Kirkuk or on Kurdistan's interests in Ninevah and Diyala, setting the stage for a potential civil war.

If, on the other hand, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki manages to hold on to power, Iraq will remain firmly in Shiite hands, and will likely have warm relations with Tehran. Certainly, Baghdad would have no interest in helping contain Iran. Relations with Saudi Arabia will continue to be bad. As the US withdraws, Iranian influence could ramp up and fill the vacuum. Al-Maliki also has his tensions with the Kurds, but his relatively bad relations with the Sunni Arabs of Mosul mean that he could deal with the Kurds without incurring much more enmity from the Sunni Arabs than he already does.

So those are the two possibilities facing Iraq-- roughly, reintegration into the Sunni-dominated Arab League, or an Iran alliance. In a way, the choices replicate those of the 1930s, Iraq's first decade of independence from Britain. The government of PM Hikmat Sulaiman in 1936-1937 rejected Arab nationalism and developed good relations with Iran. Sulaiman was a Turkmen and he served under the military dictatorship of Bakr al-Sidqi, a Kurd. There is a sense in which the al-Maliki-Talibani condominium of the past 4 years revives many geopolitical themes of the Sulaiman-Sidqi period. Their dire enemies were the Arab nationalist officers, who were focused on Palestine and felt more kinship with Egypt than with Iran. Allawi is more in that Arab nationalist tradition, though he is by heritage a Shiite.

Here is why I think the return of Allawi as prime minister is unlikely despite an apparently strong showing for his party in the elections.

The Saudi-owned pan-Arab London daily "The Middle East" [al-Sharq al-Awsat] is reporting that its correspondents are conveying an (unscientific) impression from exit polling that the Iraqi National List of Allawi is doing extremely well in the Sunni Arab provinces, and is running a strong second in the Shiite south (Kurds in the north typically vote only for Kurdish parties.) The report is rather breathless and I think the numbers are almost certainly exaggerated. It also alleges that current prime minister Nuri al-Maliki's State of Law coalition is getting 40% of votes in the Shiite south, which may be true for Baghdad and Basra (it did nearly that well in the provincial elections last year), but it would represent a major change in voting patterns in rural Shiite provinces such as Maysan and Dhi Qar.

Even so, without an unexpected landslide in the south, Allawi is unlikely to become prime minister. He will need 163 seats out of 325 to govern, and there is probably no way for his coalition to deliver them. Even leading lists will likely get less that 100 seats, and so will need post-election coalition partners. That small parties willing to ally with Allawi would have as many as 75 seats to deliver to him seems unlikely. So he'd have to deal with the big three--the State of Law, the National Iraqi Alliance, and the Kurdistan Alliance (or the Kurdistan parties generally). But they might well decline to deal with him, and could seek to exclude him instead.

Al-Maliki's State of Law list campaigned hard against the resurgence of Baathism, and Allawi and many on his list are ex-Baathists, so al-Maliki would have to eat a lot of crow to accept a junior position in an Allawi government. It seems unlikely, even if politics makes for strange bedfellows.

The Shiite religious parties grouped in the National Iraqi Alliance are said by the exit polls (for the little they are worth) to be coming in third. They are also highly unlikely to ally with Allawi, since he is an old-time CIA asset and ex-Baathist whose interim government was hostile to the Shiite religious authorities and to Iran.

Allawi appears to be attracting strong support in Ninevah Province in the north, which returned an Arab nationalist party in the provincial elections of 2009. Ninevah has a Sunni Arab majority and a Kurdish minority, but the Kurds had been dominant in provincial government and the security forces because the Sunnis had sat out the provincial elections of January 2005. There is very bad blood between the Arabs and Kurds in Ninevah.

So Allawi will find it difficult to ally with the Kurds while keeping his Sunni Arab nationalist base. (Update: I incorrectly said earlier that it takes two thirds to elect a president, but this rule was changed so that it is only on the first try; if parliament cannot elect a president by 2/3s, it can do so on the second ballot by 51 percent. That this is so strengthens my argument that the Shiites and Kurds could outmaneuver Allawi.)

Whereas the numbers don't easily add up for Allawi, it seems likely that the State of Law, the Shiite fundamentalist parties of the NIA, and some smaller parties willing to join the two of them, could easily get to over 163, and they have a proven ability to work with the Kurds and independents.

As I suggested Sunday, one price al-Maliki might have to pay to gain the National Iraqi alliance as a partner is to agree to accelerate the US troop withdrawal (a key demand of the Sadr faction in the NIA).

Whatever the outcome of the voting (and a projected result based on one-third of the votes is scheduled to be announced on Wednesday), it may not be easily accepted by the losers. There is tremendous anxiety in Iraq about the possibility of ballot fraud in the wake of Sunday's parliamentary elections. The Iranian Arabic-language satellite station al-Alam reported on Sunday that the Shiite fundamentalist Sadr movement was alarmed to hear that ballot boxes were being transported from the provinces to Baghdad by US troops, and insisted that the US be kept away from those boxes. (They must have heard about Florida in 2000). Allawi is on Aljazeera complaining about irregularities. He didn't say this, but campaigning continued through Sunday although it was supposed to be forbidden after Friday late afternoon. In Basra, al-Hayat reports that anti-Allawi pamphlets were dropped by helicopter on Saturday and Sunday.

Bottom line, another Allawi prime ministership is unlikely even if his list turns in strong performance.

End/ (Not Continued)



For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Iran Briefing on the Hill Wednesday

Announcement:

The National Iranian American Council is pleased to present “Iran at a Crossroads: Assessing a Changing Landscape” on Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 9 AM in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 106, Capitol Hill, Washington, DC. The conference will feature experts such as Professor Juan Cole, Dr. Scott Lucas of Enduring America and Amb. Robert Hunter of the RAND Corporation. For more information, please visit the event page for this briefing at the NIAC site.




End/ (Not Continued)
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Will Muqtada and Ammar force the Next Prime Minister to Demand a US Withdrawal? Turnout Heavy with two Dozen Dead in early Election Violence

Voting in Iraq began early Sunday, and turnout appeared to be heavy. The BBC analysis is that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's State of Law coalition will do well enough at the polls to again form the government, partnering with other religious Shiite parties. According to the Iraqi constitution, the party or coalition list with the largest number of seats, even if it is not a majority, will be given the first opportunity to form a government.

Al-Maliki, however, may well have to pay a price for remaining prime minister, if he can manage to do so, since that outcome would certainly require that he make a post-election coalition with the Shiite religious parties of the National Iraqi Alliance. The latter include the Sadr Movement and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. Muqtada al-Sadr, leader of the Sadr movement, said Saturday on the Iran-based al-Alam satellite channel that he would only support a prime ministerial candidate who agreed to accelerate the departure of the US from Iraq. Based on its performance in last year's provincial elections, the Sadr Movement could well get half of the seats gained by the National Iraqi Alliance; if Sadrists did that well, they could be essential to putting together the 51 percent al-Maliki (or any other prime minister) would need to govern. Scroll down to see a translation of Sadr's remarks, which are the first entry for Sunday below.

Moreover, it is not just al-Sadr. I detect a change in the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, now led by Ammar al-Hakim after the death from lung cancer of his father, Abd al-Aziz. The father had been sanguine about the presence of US troops in Iraq, and called for them to stay in the country, seeing them as a guarantor against the return of the Baathists (the secular Arab nationalists led by Saddam Hussein before his overthrow in 2003). Ammar al-Hakim was brought up in Iran and is close to Iranian hard liners. The US military once arrested him as he was sneaking across the border from Iran after a secret visit to Tehran that appears not to have involved any visas or border stations. In Ankara last winter, he referred to the US military as "occupation forces" and gave partial credit to ISCI for forcing them to withdraw on a timetable. But as late as January, even he was saying that the US presence in Iraq is not a major issue, since it has departed and the bases are being closed (he probably meant that it has decided to depart). He also, however, praised armed resistance to Israeli occupation and, on a trip to Beirut, laid a wreat at the tomb of Imad Mughniya, a radical Shiite whom the US and Israeli categorized as a terrorist.

Ammar has a say in who serves as the Friday Prayer leader and sermonizer at the mosque of the shrine of Ali in the holy city of Najaf, a position of great influence. It is now held by Sayyid Yasin al-Musawi. Al-Musawi's sermon on last Friday in Najaf contained a number of themes that suggest that ISCI may be returning to its Khomeinist roots. Al-Musawi praised political obedience to the Shiite grand ayatollahs, not just spiritual obedience. That sounded close to the Khomeinist principle of the guardianship of the jurisprudent, or rule of the ayatollahs, which prevails in Iran. And he warned of conspiracies against Iraqi independence, saying that these conspiracies were launched by 'global arrogance and the secularists.'

Now, 'global arrogance' is a technical term in political discourse among hard liners in Iran, and refers to the United States. I never heard an ISCI preacher use this phrase while Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim was leading the movement. Al-Musawi was warning of a US alliance with the secular National Iraqi List of Iyad Allawi aimed at keeping Iraq a colony of Washington.

(In fact, Karen DeYoung of WaPo reports that the Obama administration came to the conclusion that Washington had little chance of influencing the outcome of the election.)

That was the other change in terminology. Al-Musawi urged voters in Najaf to cast their ballots for those who will work for Iraqi independence and against 'colonialism' (al-isti`mar). Again, this term was not publicly foregrounded among leaders of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, since they had a rough alliance of convenience with Washington in overthrowing and marginalizing the Baath Party. But now the Friday prayers preacher of Najaf is denouncing global arrogance and openly calling Iraq a colonized country that must regain its independence. This point of view had more commonly been found among Iraqi Sunni Arabs or in the Sadr Movement, as well as among hard liners across the border in Iran.

So if ISCI has decided that it is now in its interest to push the US out on a shorter timetable, and is allied with Sadrists who think the same way, then they could make that acceleration of the withdrawal a precondition for joining al-Maliki's coalition. Al-Maliki would not have many alternatives. He is unlikely to pair himself with Allawi, whom he sees as a dusted-off Baathist (al-Maliki campaigned against what he warned was resurgent Baathist influence in Iraq, though by that he seems to have meant simple Arab nationalism that threatened the dominance of the Shiite religious parties, including his Islamic Mission (Da`wa) Party). That stance will make it hard for him to get cooperation from the National Iraqi List. Al-Maliki is also too much of an Iraqi nationalist to have really warm and close relations with the Kurdistan Alliance, which wants to add Kirkuk to its holdings, a step that al-Maliki has generally opposed. Moreover, al-Maliki may not need much pressure to call for a quicker US departure. He has for some time insisted that the Iraqi military is perfectly capable of keeping order in the country, and he clearly chafed when Vice President Joe Biden attempted to intervene to reverse the disqualification of over 500 allegedly Baath-linked candidates.

Although some observers are hailing the possibility that ex-Baathist secularist Iyad Allawi could become prime minister, in part based on Sunni support, that scenario seems unlikely to me. In the early 2009 provincial elections, Allawi's list only got 3 percent in the major southern Shiite province of Basra, and in most of the other 8 provinces with heavy Shiite populations it did equally poorly or was almost invisible in the returns; Qadisiya Province was the outlier, where Allawi gained about 8 percent of the vote, as he did in Baghdad. (For the provincial election returns, see my analysis of a little over a year ago.)

While it is true that Allawi has a bigger coalition this time, having been joined by secular Sunni Arabs, that won't help him in the Shiite south. In December, 2005, his list got 9 percent of the vote, in part because of popularity in Basra, which seems to have substantially declined. His list only got 14 percent in the provincial elections in the Sunni province of Salahuddin, and 8 percent in al-Anbar, though admittedly he has more Sunni partners this time. The only way his list will be the largest in parliament is if virtually all the Sunni Arabs swing behind it and there has been a sea change in Basra, Baghdad and Diwaniya so that he does unexpectedly well among the urban Shiite middle classes (his major likely constituents in the Shiite south).

Since there is a ban on driving vehicles, guerrillas will not be able to use car bombs to disrupt the voting. They have therefore fallen back on firing mortar shells, as they did in January 2005. By 10:30 am Iraq time, some 24 dead were being reported in these attacks in north Baghdad and in Salahuddin Province, and the Green Zone that houses the US embassy and the Iraqi parliament had also been targeted.

Journalist Nir Rosen, who has spent a lot of time on the ground in the Red Zone in Iraq talking to real people, warns against the meme that the elections could bring a return of civil war or very major violence. I concur. My interviews with Sunni Arab Iraqis in Jordan suggest to me that that community is dejected and feels defeated, and is not looking foward to more violence.


End/ (Not Continued)
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Sadr Calls for Election of MPs Who will Demand immediate US Departure; Forbids Violence, calls for Sunni-Shiite Unity

The USG Open Source Center translates an interview with Shiite clerical leader Muqtada al-Sadr, broadcast in Arabic into Iraq by the Iranian al-Alam satellite television channel, which is widely watched by Iraqi Shiites. Coming on the eve of the election, the interview seems aimed at helping al-Sadr's National Iraqi Alliance, which groups several Shiite religious parties that have good relations with Iran and several of which are eager to accelerate the US military withdrawal.

Sadr's main points are:

1. Iraqis should vote to put in members of parliament who will support a quicker US withdrawal;

2. Members of parliament should not server Shiite, Sunni or Kurd but rather the Iraqi nation;

3. Regardless of the election outcome, people should not riot or resort to violence, but rather should stage peaceful demonstrations;

4. Sadr does not rule out a coalition with even secular parties as long as they will agree to accelerate the US withdrawal;

5. Sadr declines to condemn Saudi Arabia or Saudi money in Iraqi politics as long as that money helps elect nationalists who will work for a US withdrawal; he points out that he has visit Saudi Arabia, and condemns the friction between Shiites and Sunnis;

6. No Iraqi government will be favorable toward Israel.


Iraqi Shiite Figure Al-Sadr Rejects Violence
Al-Alam Television
Saturday, March 6, 2010 . . .
Document Type: OSC Summary . . .

Tehran Al-Alam Television in Arabic at 1716 GMT on 6 March broadcast a recording of a news conference by Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in Tehran. Al-Sadr said during the news conference that he has rejected violence and any "immoral" acts.

Al-Sadr said: "In the name of God the Most Merciful and Most Compassionate. . . I say that despite the fact that I was, I still am and will continue to reject the American and other occupation of Iraq and the sacred Iraqi territory. However, this does not mean that I reject the current election process.

"In the past, I used to say that the elections or any political process under occupation is null and void and has no meaning or effect. However, in this stage of the elections, we wish that the Iraqi people make this election process a political resistance action, in the hope that we may be able to drive away the occupier through these elections. The occupier holds on to the (pretext) that the Iraqi government is the one that asks it to remain in Iraq.

"In case the believers, sincere and patriotic people obtain parliamentary seats, this will be a door to the liberation of Iraq and to driving out the occupier and to something else which is important and which is to serve the Iraqi people. Serving the Iraqi people is a duty. We see that many members of the previous government, I would say, were not people to serve the Iraqi people in the past four years. It is hoped that the presence of believers and sincere people in large numbers will be a door to serving the Iraqi people and not to serving parties, sectarianism and personal and partisan interests.

"Thus, I pray God Almighty and I hope that the believers from the believer Iraqi people go to the polls and vote for the one who is able to be loyal to the Iraqi people, to be the liberator of the Iraqi people and be a mujahid [struggler for the Faith] and a man of resistance with political resistance of and for the Iraqi people, a servant of the Iraqi people and not serve himself and his faction and party; no.

"I want from all the believers to be Iraqis only and not serve their party or faction. Let us talk frankly: I do not want the Shi'i to serve the Shi'i and the Sunni serve the Sunni and the Kurd serve the Kurd. No. I want the Iraqi to serve the Iraqi, whether he is a Kurd, a Shi'i, a Torkoman or a Sunni or a member of any other Iraqi sect, whether a minority or a majority one. Thee important thing for the believers who obtain seats is to serve the Iraqi people and not their faction or party.

"This is the first thing. The second thing which is also important is that I heard, and perhaps it is true, that acts of rioting will take place after the elections and acts of, let us say, violence and unhealthy acts will take place after the elections. This is completely rejected. Yes, there is a possibility and I have great fears of rigging. The occupier is present and rigging must certainly be a possibility. This does not mean however that you carry out acts of rioting or immoral acts. No. You have peaceful means and peaceful protests you must adopt but anything more than that is not possible and in that there is treason to the Iraqi people, the Iraqi territory and its security. We called for and are still calling for the security, safety and liberation of Iraq and its people. This is our goal and anything which violates this is completely forbidden."
Cont'd (click below or on "comments")


An Al-Alam Television correspondent questions Al-Sadr's statement expecting setting up of an alliance or union for the liberation of Iraq. The second part of the question says that there are moves for the appointment of a prime minister who is not from the Islamic trend.

Al-Sadr responds: "As for the first question, I hope that all the Iraqi people participate in this alliance which is an alliance for the liberation of Iraq and for getting Iraq away from the claws of the invaders. I am ready to cooperate absolutely with any party which wants to liberate Iraq and rid it of the occupier and I agree to cooperate and ally myself with it. Perhaps not everybody agrees with this thinking; however, I am ready (to cooperate with) any party which agrees with me on that project. As for the prime minister, I am not the one who appoints him. He is appointed by the alliances and Iraqi people. The one among people who serves the Iraqi people in the eyes of the latter will be, God willing, the one who will get that seat to serve the people through it."

In response to a question on allegations by the prime minister against other parties, Al-Sadr says: "These are political wranglings which must be avoided by all. I hope that nobody will attack verbally or through the media any other side, either the alliance or others, whether the alliance attacks somebody else or somebody attacks the alliance, this is the same thing. All the parties are Iraqis and can be the servants of the Iraqi people. The effective thing which can be said is: When we see that a person or entity implements the Islamic, Iraqi and patriotic concepts, then it is the person or entity that serves the Iraqi people (?otherwise) he does not serve the Iraqi people."

A correspondent asks: What can you tell us about Saudi Arabia interfering in the Iraqi elections?

Al-Sadr says: "Interferences are from many sources and not just from Saudi Arabia. Perhaps some interferences are positive and others are negative. The main intervention which we do not want is rejected and is forbidden is the American intervention in the Iraqi territory. Yes, we approve the interference of Muslim and Arab brothers in the interest of the Iraqi people. We reject (the interference) in which there is foreign agenda and interests which do not serve the Iraqi people. From here, I say that I reject all types of sectarian escalation taking place in Iraq and outside it. There is a sectarian tendency in general in the Middle East, between the Shi'is and the Sunnis that must end as soon as possible as it is not at all in the interest of Iraq, Islam, Arabs or others."

Responding to a question on the possible return of Ba'thists, Al-Sadr says: "Do you mean that they will return through the elections. Do you mean their return to the government or their entering the elections? If there is a new government, then the Ba'thists will not get in. Look my dear, there is one thing only out of two options. Either, what happened must happen - and I agree on it - the removal of Ba'thists and harmful people from the political process is a necessary thing and I mean either the Ba'thists or others. The second option and solution is to accept that they enter the elections - and I am certain - that the Iraqi people will not vote for them. If this happens, then the Ba'thists will not blame you for removing them. In this case, my dear, they will have entered the elections and nobody will have voted for them or given them any value."

Questioned on attempts by Ba'thists to return to political arena and reports on Al-Sadr's role in uniting all lists in one national coalition, he says: "First, you should not have mentioned some national blocs with the exclusion of others. All blocs may be national. All blocs may be Iraqi. All blocs may want to serve the Iraqi people, but in the way it can do this.

"Yes, I define certain bodies like terrorists, militias, Ba'thists and so forth that do not want to serve the Iraqi people. This is 100 per cent yes. But other parties, blocs and alliances may want to serve the Iraqi people. We are not sinless and they are not sinless. Good! If they not sinless, what will happen then? They try to serve, but they cannot. There may be something wrong with the application, the mechanisms and the lack of application or coordination. All try to serve Iraq and the Iraqi people. But there is something wrong with the mechanisms and the application.

"Yes, if the blocs are united and cooperate among themselves, they could serve the Iraqi people. A few days ago someone asked me, saying: I am in parliament and I want to serve the Iraqi people and want to have a resolution endorsed in the Iraqi parliament. How can I have this resolution passed? In case each one has a different opinion and we cannot (agree) and we remain a minority in parliament, this resolution will never be endorsed. Consequently, the parliament may water down the resolutions that are in favour of the Iraqi people.

"We hope this parliamentary grouping will coordinate its activity among (various parties). (Words Indistinct) If they cooperate, all may be nationalists and all may be servants of the Iraqi people, either the two alliances that you mentioned or others."
Asked about Iyad Allawi's recent visit to Saudi Arabia, Al-Sadr says: "Only God knows about it. God is the knower of the unseen things. I do not know the unseen things. I do not know what they discussed. But God willing this would be for the good of Iraq. I am one of the people who wished to visit the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. There is no problem in this. But these visits, as I said before, will be in favour of the Iraqi people.

"I told you this is politics. Anything can happen in political relations, the possible and the impossible."

Responding to a question on the impact of Saudi and Gulf funding of some Iraqi parties on election results in favor of parties loyal to Saudi Arabia, Al-Sadr remarks: "I do not know whether it (the money) will be in favour of or not. The money is sometimes spent in favour of the Iraqi people. In this case, there is no objection. But sometimes it is spent in favour of the Iraqi people's enemy. Certainly this is unacceptable."

Al-Sadr is asked about spending this money for bodies antagonistic to the Iraqi people, to which he remarks: "I do not engage in political wrangling. It may be in favour of the Iraqi people. I hope it (the money) will be in favour of the Iraqi people. But I do not know whether this is really the case or not. I do not know the unseen things."

With regard to a security conference in Israel that hinted that any future Iraqi government will be anti-Israeli, he says: "This is necessary and certain. We reject any Iraqi government that will benefit and support Israel. We will be against it. We hope it will be against (Israel)."

Al-Sadr is asked about his willingness to visit Saudi Arabia and whether the visit will be for pilgrimage or meeting Saudi officials, he says: "Both are okay. It is good to combine both."

On the topics he may discuss during such a visit, he responds: "It will be in favour of Iraqi people and the Muslim Shi'i-Sunni unity. I have anything more than this."

Questioned whether the Al-Sadr movement will support Nuri al-Maliki for the post of prime minister, Al-Sadr says: "I do not intervene in certain issues. There is a political body of Al-Sadr movement. You can ask the political body as it can decide. I prefer not to talk about this."

(Description of Source: Tehran Al-Alam Television in Arabic -- 24-hour Arabic news channel, targetting a pan-Arab audience, of Iranian state-run television, officially controlled by the office of the supreme leader)



For "cont'd" postings, click here.