On Middle Eastern Issues.

2007-06-03T23:23:00.000Z

Are Russia and USA restating the Cold War?

Vladimir Putin attacked foreign intervention in Russia, the US missile defence plan and called for an increase in domestic oil processing in a defiant final annual address to parliament before he steps down as Russian president in 2008. The speech showed in a certain way the escalating tension on different levels between Russia and the other major powers, especially the EU and the USA.

Recently, Russia have announced they've tested new strategic and tactical missiles, in response to U.S. plans to install a missile defence shield in Europe.

Russia seems to be keen on returning to the world stage as a force to reckon with. After the fall of communism, it was busy laying the basis for its shift to liberalism. Like the polar bear, it was in a state of hibernation. Now it is getting more and more awake after being warmed up by what it sees the approaching erosion of its icy and firm land.

Russia, as it appears, doesn't want to be seen as a middle power with the rise of China and India as the potential superpowers in the future. Russia doesn't want to be cornered by the EU and the USA, the major economic and political blocs. Russia needs an aggressive policy by putting its house in order through democracy and ending corruption. The current powers should deal with it without hurting its pride. As a giant country, it has the power to be both a constructive or destructive force on the world stage. So it’s better to let the sleeping bear in it lying instead of stirring it to push against anything in its way.

But as the US is intent to pursue its military strategies, especially through its missile defence system is likely to urge Russia to be more suspicious. USA is worried about the secretive armament of China. Iran is intent on developing its nuclear program. So it seems the world is heading towards a new era of arms race. The end of the cold war after the fall of communism in Russia and Eastern Europe was just a lull. The new world reality and the resentment of many powers of the US hegemony on the world stage will make them think of developing their defence systems.

Believing in world peace is only an illusion. There is no end of the clashes of civilisations and ideologies. As such military power will remain the best resort for many to strike a balance at the expense of economic projects that can benefit many poor peoples throughout the globe.

Legal action against Iranian president?

2007-03-31T15:53:00.000Z

It sounds unlikely that the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be brought to trial on the evidence of publicly calling for the wiping out of Israel from the world map. He is just the mouthpiece of the Iranian regime that stands behind him as it first gave him the go-ahead to stand as presidential candidate before finally and surprisingly winning against all expectations. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is only a façade for the Iranian regime. He is far from being an executive president as the important decisions are taken by the Ayatollahs and their spiritual leader.

It will be just a waste of time and a futile legal manoeuvre to bring to prominence accusations against him. He, in a way, symbolizes the sovereignty of his country. To date no acting president was brought to trial on similar charges. The precedents concern deposed presidents like Saddam Hussein of Iraq and Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia. His immunity will make him unreachable and under no obligation to account for his statements or retract them.

The emphasis should how be on how to make the Iranian regime friendly to its traditional enemies like the USA and Israel. There are more important issues like its nuclear program and its role in the current situation in Iraq. This is what sounds urgent. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, according to his country’s constitution will have the maximum of two terms to be in power. But a faulty approach to Iranian regime as a whole can have devastating effects for generations.

Trying him will sound like the mock trials some lawyers take pleasure in performing against leaders. Egypt is one of the countries where lawyers are famous for trying international figures like US president George Bush and UK PM Tony Blair. The verdict remains like the final scene of a play which is known to be in advance a fiction with little impact on reality.

As Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, by the limited powers attributed to him, should be seen as a media star taking pleasure in vehemently attacking the US and Israel to draw public support inside and outside Iran, for appearing as the main threat to their existence in the Middle East.

Offensive public statements are just mere words that can be easily forgotten or overridden with new wordings. The Middle East as a whole needs its own type of affirmative action on all levels for everyone to live in it. It shouldn’t continue to be seen as place where only might is right even if it costs the annihilation of the opposite side.

can violence end in Iraq?

2007-03-31T15:37:00.000Z

A wave of car bombs and mortars in Baghdad's Sadr City district has left at least 144 people dead and more than 200 injured, Iraq police have said.

Such a rate of death occurring daily is a loud call for internal, regional and international cooperation to restore peace in Iraq. Violent attacks have become a routine in a worrying way even for people living far from Iraq because of the human cost. It's high time key players in the region joined together to put an end to such atrocity out of human consideration.

Linking the human situation in Iraq to political differences will simply amplify the daily risks. It's better for all the politicians to see themselves as a part of UN Red Cross to have the feel of what must humanely be done regardless of political calculations.

The end of violence in Iraq is in the hands of the Iraqis themselves. The daily atrocities are committed mainly by Iraqis against Iraqis, leaving families after families in a state of mourning . Iraq should be a country where life is celebrated. It shouldn’t be a country where killed people are daily counted, with the subsequent silly figures and graphs calculating the ratio of deaths and comparing them to past periods.

Regional cooperation to end the violence in this country can succeed by disarming the militias and creating a national army that can secure peace in Iraq with or without foreign forces. These will sooner or later leave Iraq. Iraqis will be left to their fate, likely to continue living in a bloodbath if they can't reach a national consensus for durable peace.

Jordan's King Warns of Civil Wars

2006-11-27T21:04:00.000Z

Jordan's King Abdullah has warned that three civil wars could break out in the Middle East unless the international community takes urgent action.

Lebanon, Palestinian Territories and Iraq have reached the climax of violence recently. All have been the scenes of open political differences among key leaders when blood is split among those supposed to have national affinities. They have got all the ingredients to fall in a civil war as they have reached the climax of violence recently. In each of these prominent politicians have sharp differences about government style and foreign alliances.

In Iraq there is sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni. In Palestinian territories there are violent clashes between mainly Fatah and Hamas armed groups, putting in jeopardy peaceful living among Palestinians themselves. Lebanon has become notorious killing; the latest is the death of industry minister Pierre Gemayel.

But as the USA is still holding the strings of politics in the region, it has the power to influence the events. It has the power to influence the events by opening channels of shuttle diplomacy with countries like Syria and Iran, one the most influential players in the region. The political time-bomb is around the corner in all three areas. Calm diplomacy is needed to diffuse it the soonest before nightmare becomes a reality.

Can Violence End in Iraq?

2006-11-25T20:01:00.001Z

A wave of car bombs and mortars in Baghdad's Sadr City district has left at least 144 people dead and more than 200 injured, Iraq police have said.

Pierre Gemayal Assassination

2006-11-21T20:13:00.000Z

Political assassinations are common in

Lebanon

, prior to its notorious civil war. It didn't spare anyone from all sections of the Lebanese society, Muslims or Christians. The most spectacular one was that of the former PM Rafik Al Hariri whose death shook up the political landscape in

Lebanon

. Among other things the military withdrawal of

Syria

, although its political presence behind the scene.

Lebanon as a democratic country has failed to be a model for the Arab world in particular. Democracy means protection from prosecution and jail.
In Lebanon, prominent politicians have to be under big security from armed body guards.

The assassination of Pierre Gemayal means life is never safe there. Ballots are not an assurance to have a comfortable seat in power. Politicians can't rely on the state to protect them because the state itself doesn't have a unified national security force. Hezbollah is an example of the armed forces that are independent of the "central" government.

This political assassination can throw Lebanon in further political instability especially if key sections turn their back to one another- deepening their historic mistrust - and seek political allies outside their country. This will make the country remain in the grip of foreign political influences.

This assassination can’t serve as a lesson to any. Such Assassinations are recurrent events. Perhaps, it’s brave to be a politician in Lebanon. Because the first thing it means is that one should be ready to die and have really trusted friends inside and outside the political circles.

Sentencing Saddam to Death

2006-11-15T01:20:00.001Z

Saddam is an example of the dictators who so blinded by power and illusions that they consider it's only them that matter. His death should be seen as justice rendered to his victims. Staying alive will make mockery of those who were hoping for justice after his oppressive rule which claimed so many lives through his armed incursions against his countrymen, especially the Kurds. He had no mercy for anyone opposed to him. His style of revenge was that of the Middle Ages. He can now come to realise that he who kills by the sword will be killed by the sword. That's what he deserves for his inhuman acts.

Saddam’s death sentence put an end to the suspense about his final verdict. His case should be set an example to those leaders who make light of the life of anyone opposed to them and asking for democracy. The act must be courageous in that the court didn't yield to the threats of his supporters which must have made Iraq look as if it is still indirectly ruled by him. This must come as a relief to his victims, to the families and friends of those who died because of his atrocities. After all it's only his life that will be lost compared to the thousands murdered to keep himself in power

The death sentence for Saddam is likely to sparkle more violence in Iraq as his capture just fuelled more attacks by his supporters. In other words Saddam is likely to continue to influence events even from his grave - in case he is hanged - for sometime. But he will become a matter of the past like other dictators whose effect dwindles as time passes by.

But preparation for further violence should be seen as a price to carry out full justice for those who were victimised by him throughout his rule. The 148 Shiaas whose death he was accused of ordering are only a very small proportion of those who inhumanely died at the hand of his forces. He made of Iraq his own empire where he was seeking personal prestige at the expense of the welfare and the human rights of the majority of the Iraqis.

The Sunnis who support him are a minority in Iraq. By having their problems solved politically and economically they can adjust to the new reality of power in Iraq where during Saddam era they used to be favoured by him while the Shiaas and the Kurds were almost second-class citizens.

US & UK for negotiations with Iran & Syria over the Situation in the Middle East

2006-11-14T22:07:00.000Z

Iran and Syria will agree to cooperate about the situation in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestinian territories as key players if they have what to gain and not to be seen as yielding to UK and US pressure into negotiations under the threat of escalating international sanctions when both are accused by the US as harbouring international terrorism.

But it’s better to “jaw and jaw rather than war and war.” Maybe opening a diplomatic dialogue on the situation in Iraq can ease the tension on other issues like Iran nuclear program and Syria alleged involvement in Lebanon. It can be a way for trust building between these two countries and the West. It’s better for them to be seen as having rounds of talks on peace in Iraq than to be considered as the major supporters of armed groups and a safe haven for insurgents who make hit and run attacks inside Iraq.

For the success of any talks, Syria and Iran should succeed in persuading the elements they harbour as fighters to adapt political lines in accordance with the agreement they can reach with the US and the UK concerning the situation in Iraq in particular and in the Middle East in general.

Intransigence on all sides will keep the situation deteriorate in Iraq in particular, which can be used by the Syrian and Iranian regimes along with that in Lebanon and Israel as a pressure card to make themselves heard internationally after their relatively international isolation . This can also serve them to win the heart and mind of people around the Islamic and the Arab world as a force capable to stand to the US when other regimes in the region are accused of being servile to it.

It remains to see how flexible all parties will be once talks open between them.

Israel-Hezbullah War, Admission of War Geneva Conventions Violation

2006-10-25T21:34:00.000Z

The full account of the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah will take time to unfold. Israel has for the first time admitted it used controversial phosphorus shells during fighting against Hezbollah in Lebanon in July and August. There are accusations that both warring parties used cluster bombs and other weapons in civilian areas contrary to Geneva conventions on war. The surviving victims are left to cope with their ordeal, especially the Lebanese who lost their loved ones and their homes.

This war showed its futility. It achieved little for both sides, except propaganda victory for Hezbollah and deep questioning for Israel army about its inability to have successful tactics to end Hezbollah as a military and political force in Lebanon.

It is for history that we should know the different military means and weapons used in this war by these sides and their origins. But on the ground, there should be a look-ahead how to make the whole region a place for peaceful living.

This war shouldn’t be used just as a commemoration for those who fell victims, but as an insight in how mutual hatred can lead to excessive measures in a world that gives importance to political calculations that make it just vocal without the long arms to change the course of events.

The war ended. It doesn’t make sense to cry over spilt milk when too much blood was spilt for differences that could have been settled diplomatically before and not after the event.

The hope is that the mess left in Lebanon, political and material will be cleared diplomatically while the country is being cleared from the rubbles resulting from the past confrontations and attacks as it should be cleared from the mines and cluster bombs still left as a booby traps.

Iraq Failing Security Plan

2006-10-20T00:02:00.000Z

The US looks stuck in Iraq as its different security measures - including the pursuit, rounding and killing of prominent insurgents like Al Zarqawi- failed to curb the daily violence.

For complete stability Iraqis need to reach national consensus on running Iraq at governmental levels, without the exclusion of any section.

Any Iraqi government will need to face the hard task of maintaining good relations with the US on one hand, and US opponent regimes in the region, namely Iran and Syria.

The US should use a new strategy for a smooth transfer of national security matters to the Iraqis who should agree on a system of government for durable internal stability and peaceful relations with neighbouring countries, especially Iran and Syria which are likely to exploit any weakness in the Iraqi leadership for their own advantage. Iran & Syria are unlikely to engage in curbing violence in Iraq under US occupation as any cooperation with the US will be viewed as yielding to its pressure.

When Iraq becomes internally stable with a credible government inside and outside the country, the US and the Iraqis themselves will have little need of Iran and Syria to stabilise the country. These countries can become good partners if they choose not to interfere with each other’s affair to form bilateral alliance to weaken one side to the advantage of the other.

Will Iran & Syria help appease Iraq?

2006-10-18T20:34:00.000Z

Iran and Syria will take advantage of the situation in Iran for their own account. they will be reluctant to cooperate with the Iraqi government, which they see as implemented by the US, to help it put an end to violent trouble in Iraq.

As long as the insurgent constitute more threats to Iraqi government and to US interests, they won't risk jeopardizing their image in the Arab and Muslim world to cooperate especially in terms of military and security matters with the US and Iraq. For Iran and Syria the situation in Iraq is the doing of the US, which since its invasion of Iraq has worsened its relations with them. It has brought both to the UN Security Council for any possible forcible sanctions.

The US will need to replace its stick policy with them by offering them the carrot they can find appetizing to switch to the US side in its fight of violence in Iraq whose instigators can easily find refuge in these countries without risk of being handed out to the Iraqi authorities or the US military.

Escalating Tension between Hamas & Fatah

2006-10-02T15:09:00.000Z

<
Hamas during its campaign that led it to form a government was selling dreams to its supporters. Now the majority of the population has wakened up to the fact they cannot live on slogans and fiery speeches from Hamas leaders. Hamas should be realistic about its approach to the Palestinian cause. Lip services from its supporters like Iran & Syria have led it nowhere. Battles between rival gangs of Fatah and Hamas will just worsen the situation.

Hamas and Fatah are ideologically opposed. The escalating violence is one consequence of this. The current power struggle can get out of control if the belligerent don’t succeed in finding a viable way-out. It's these inherent differences that in part delayed the setup of the Palestinian state. The battle of interests will continue between them as long as Fattah is internationally recognised while Hamas put the Palestinian issue on a hot rock. The survival of the Palestinians is now linked to the fate of Hamas. As long as Hamas is internationally marginalised, the ordinary Palestinians will be more vocal against Hamas itself through direct clashes with it.

As the situation worsens, this will be advantageous to Israel by trying to weaken Hamas not just internationally but internally as well.

The Palestinians with a divided leadership will suffer most. Abbas Abu Mazzeen the leader of the Palestinian authorities can have diplomatic negotiations that aren’t translated into action. Hamas is having most of diplomatic doors shut at its nose. The needy poor Palestinians caught in the crossfire - literally and metaphorically - between Hamas and Fatah, Hamas and Israel can't get the help they deserve pending on the continuation of Hamas in power.

National reconciliation is needed for the good of all to establish a state on firm grounds.

Saddam Trial & political Consequences

2006-09-29T21:24:00.000Z

The trial of Saddam is the trial of his tribe and the people who are still loyal to him. He seems to be still having influence on the mind of many, especially those who enjoyed affluence in his era. Saddam seems to have a double set of defendants. There is the defence that represents him at court as there is the secret defence that carries the killing of judges and their relatives in his support.

Even at the end of his trial and in the case of subsequent execution, Saddam will continue to exercise influence from his grave. Saddam can disappear from public view when the trial finally ends. He can totally disappear from people's mind as a force when Iraq returns to full stability instead of remaining under the mercy of mutual and collective recrimination.

Suspending the trial of Saddam also means suspending the trial of those that were closely associated with him like Tariq Aziz and others. This can make a mockery of the justice system in Iraq in that justice is carried out of political consideration and not for its own sake. This will also open the gate for the demand to acquit and compensate those that have been imprisoned and tried because of their former association with Saddam's regime.

Fuelling Terror

2006-09-27T15:50:00.000Z

The American values have been criticised by Islamists as a threat to theirs. Now the US presence in Iraq has fuelled hatred to the US. The US presence in Muslim countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, which are under its occupation, has fuelled terror and hatred to the US. There are other Jihadists who are against US military bases in Muslim countries like Qatar.Other incidents like the scandals of Abu Gharib prison indecent torture of Iraqi prisoners and the controversial setup of Guantanamo prison where alleged terrorists are held, some of whom committed suicide portray the US as an aggressor after human dignity .

Iraq is viewed by extremist Islamists as the first step for wide range and direct involvement of the US in Muslim countries, dictating to them under the threat of sanction the government style they should have. Iraq remains a battleground against the US as Afghanistan was a training ground for terrorists who succeeded in carrying 9/11 attacks and others in many parts of the world. For Jihadists from all over the world, the US interests and those of its allies remain their target.

Terrorism will increase as long as there are diametrical differences between US policy in the Muslim world and the views of Jihadists who have enough means to spread their terror. Terrorism can’t be rooted out overnight as long a captured or a killed terrorist is easily replaced by another. Jihadist ideology has deepened even in Western countries through the radical members of Muslim communities. Iraq will remain their focus, as it is the best examples for them to show their followers to what extent American values don’t fit in what they consider an Islamic surrounding that should remain purely so without any foreign influence.

Ending Lebanon Blockade

2006-09-07T17:27:00.000Z

The lifting of Lebanon blockade by Israel is just a step to ease the economic difficulties facing Lebanon after the war between Hezbollah and Israel which left much of Lebanese infrastructure in ruin. Lebanon still looks unstable as it needs UN peace keeping forces for enduring cessation of hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel and for reconstruction to restart.

But in view of the extensive damage and the political situation, Lebanon can restart through promised international aid and investment from Lebanese compatriots. It will need more time to win the confidence of international investors, especially in tourism – a trade that can flourish only in stable areas.

But as the Lebanese were able to resurrect after their civil war, which left Lebanon in a much worse state than it is now, it is possible for them to re-emerge, all depending on the peace they can have with Israel and the extent of national unity they can put in practice.

Hassan Nasrallah,Regret & Self-mockery

2006-08-28T15:47:00.000Z

Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah expressed his regret about triggering a war with Israel. In other words, he confessed his political immaturity. His political short-sightedness led him to think that he would change the course of history in the Middle East probably as it might have been revealed to him in a dream from a messenger.

Many upstart politicians depend on stirring the public emotions to achieve popularity. Hassan Nasrallah had his heydays for more than a month in which he was portrayed as the new hero or the new superman of the Middle East. After the ceasefire, he was bold enough to declare victory despite the devastating damages.

His regret is an implicit recognition that he has given more than he has taken. To free a score of Lebanese in Israeli jails, he caused the death of at least 1000 people and the injury of thousands others. To free Shabaa Farms, he caused the destruction of considerable areas in Lebanon.

His expression of regret is an admission of defeat. He has never expressed sorrow for the damages Israel suffered because of his rockets. But his declaration can be seen an “olive branch” to Israel or simply an order he received from his masters in Syria and Iran. Basshar Al Assad of Syria retracted his derogatory statements about the conduct of some Arab political leaders during the war.

If Nasrallah has learnt his lessons and means his words, politically he will have to make it easy for the UN peacekeeping force to succeed in its mission by not envisaging any other foolish act that will stir Israeli retaliation. The good news can be for the UN to send the agreed number of forces at least to test Nasrallah on his public expression of regret and desire for peace.

Iran Growing Influence?

2006-08-24T16:35:00.001Z

Iran is using the current situation in Lebanon and its confrontation with USA over its nuclear programme to find more fuel for support in the Muslim world which increasingly sees the USA as a malevolent power trying to influence their traditions and shape their identity. Iran as a Muslim country uses this asset to galvanise support based on religion. The Muslim world sees in Iran an alternative to change the course of events in the Middle East.

Economically Iran is banking on its geographic position in a region rich in oil and of which Iran is a great supplier.

But Iran can’t achieve its goal of toppling US influence in the region if it is itself confronted with sanctions, weakening its power and leaving it stand alone among countries in the region that have no choice but to remain US allies.

The past events have shown that many figures gain popular support by standing to the US whether they are head of states as it was the case in Iraq where Saddam was humiliatingly toppled and paraded on the media after his capture. Kaddaffi, Libyan leader had to abandon his nuclear programme to win US friendship. Iran has a history of confrontation with the US since the establishment of Iranian Revolution. There have been rounds of diplomatic confrontations prior to the nuclear programme. Time will tell how the US and Iran will work out their deep differences without either losing face or involving the whole region in complete instability or ruin similar to what we are witnessing in Iraq or Lebanon.

War of Words and Make-believe

2006-08-24T16:33:00.000Z

After the ceasefire following the relentless attacks and counter-attacks from ‎Hezbollah and Israel, the field was left to the war of words as militarily nothing was ‎achieved for Israel or Hezbollah. Israel didn’t manage to return its captured soldiers as ‎it failed to completely disarm and destroy Hezbollah. Hezbollah didn’t get the release ‎of Arab prisoners from Israeli Jails as it didn’t mange to get Israel out of Shebbaa ‎Farms it claims to be Lebanese soil.‎

But in view of the big mismatch between Hezbollah force and Israeli force both in ‎men and equipment, Hezbollah can claim victory in that Israel destroyed more ‎civilian installations than military ones and it killed in its raids more civilians than ‎Hezbollah fighters. In a sense, Hezbollah force remained intact. ‎

Hezbollah also won huge popularity, especially in the Muslim world at the expense of ‎Israel that has been portrayed as an aggressor. During the war, there were big ‎demonstrations in many Muslim countries as there were “victory” celebrations at the ‎start of the cease-fire. Hezbollah seems not to have disappointed its backers Syria and ‎Iran as through its confrontation with Israel it stirred the international community to ‎take action including sending huge peacekeeping force.‎

Hezbollah can now use its TV channel Al Manar showing footage of its struggle ‎against Israel, the damage, human and material Israel left in Lebanon to keep hold of the hearts and minds it has won. Hassan Nasr Allah may give himself the ‎right to be the new idol in the Muslim world and the Middle East. ‎

Hezbollah has more time to be in the news as there are still international preparations ‎for completing the peacekeeping force. When all is quiet, it will no longer be in the ‎news drawing such an interest. Then it will have the real task of keeping its credibility ‎among the Lebanese population and its stature among Syrian and Iranian leaders, its main ‎supporters.‎

The international community has to see the outcome of this war in its context. It has ‎to look to Lebanon, the country and to resurrect it from the rubble it is under now ‎instead of letting it continuously remain the battleground where proxy wars are made and in ‎which the civilian population pay the heaviest price.‎

Will Ceasefire Hold in Lebanon?

2006-08-24T16:31:00.000Z

The UN resolution is for a cessation of hostilities. But the ceasefire is unlikely to hold because the resolution didn’t redress the political problems in the Middle ‎East, the cause of frequent open hostilities, namely the Palestinian issue and permanent political borders between Israel and its neighbours, which are the core of these problems. It means nothing. Sooner or later trouble will re-emerge. ‎
Hezbollah and Israel are ideologically opposed. They will keep their mutual distrust. Hezbollah has military ‎and political power in Lebanon. The latest conflict has made it a new political power in the Muslim world, especially among the Muslim public.
The Lebanese army has little influence as it stood powerless in face of Israeli ‎attacks, as it didn’t have any power to disarm Hezbollah. Hezbollah has acted on its own, using its TV Al Manar ‎to propagate its ideology as it has used its militia to carry armed attacks, disregarding Lebanese officials who are ‎opting for moderation. It finds its strength in allying with Syria and Iran for whom Israel is enemy number one in the ‎Middle East. This means the Lebanese government despite its agreement the on cease-fire resolution won’t ‎control it. ‎
Israel is set to destroy Hezbollah by whatever means. The days of fighting showed the level of ferocity on both ‎parts. Each making signal to the other that future fights will be the same or more tense.‎
The war attracted too much attention. It settled nothing for either side. It just caused mere deaths, injuries and destructions.
In view of the complexity of the problem, with its wide implications for the whole region, permanent peace will ‎remain hard to achieve in the near future unless moderation is reached by all parties directly or indirectly ‎implicated in this stalemate. In other words, all international resolutions will remain a piece of paper whose ‎wordings can, in itself, give justification for restarting hostilities.‎

Rules of War

2006-08-24T16:29:00.000Z

Human history is full of incidents of war. Chronologically there isn’t a single year in which we don’t have cases of armed fights within a country or between countries. Each nation has its share of war and tries to make it – in case of a big victory -a national occasion that is yearly celebrated.

Today we have different types of war that can be carried contrary to Geneva Conventions . There is War on Terror which needs a particular strategy, not involving just the army but all components of society.
There is the civil war as it is happening in Sri Lanka. There is the allegedly proxy war as it is happening in Lebanon where Hezbollah is fighting on behalf of Iran and Syria. Israel is doing it for the USA, which wants to eradicate all religious radicals in the Middle East.

There is also the war of words. But this war is very cheap. It doesn’t need military equipment or training. All you need is mastery of words to silence your enemy.

The equipments of many armies remain secret, especially if they have banned chemical weapons.
Armies in fight try to win by whatever cost. There are many armies that commit atrocities, especially in civil wars. There have been cases in DR Congo, Sudan and Rwanda. Little was done by the international community to stop it. The only thing it can do is to impose arms embargo. Even this doesn't succeed as there is a black market at least for light weapons.

In armed conflicts, it seems that the civilian population and installations are the main targets. Israel, unable to pinpoint the exact arms location of Hezbollah, makes random attacks. Hezbollah unable to reach Israeli military installations fire rockets. The important is that they reach Israeli land, wherever.

The war, despite the rhetoric remains subject to the law of the jungle. We have incidences in Iraq where some American and British soldiers showed disregard for military ethics. They engaged in rape, torture and killing of civilians.

When war starts, there is little to refrain it. Each army tries to keep its pride. For this it must do what it can not to show its weakness. Action must continue at whatever cost. It’s no wonder if Israel confuses military and civilian targets and if Hezbollah spares no missiles. Both sides seek to leave their landmark in the history of war.

War doesn't have rules because it is war. After the event, there are elaborate justifications, expressions of regret or celebration for the maximum damage inflicted on the enemy.
As long as there is a clash of ideologies and as long as the end justifies the means, there will little regard for internationally recognised rules of law.In each war there are reciprocal accusations of violations of the rules of war.
A war is a fight for survival. When it is raging, soldiers don't open the book of rules. They open fire with all the might they have.

Blog Directory Blog Directory
Take the poll

Free Poll by Blog Flux

Lebanon, a Battleground

2006-08-24T16:27:00.000Z

Lebanon has the misfortune of being geographically the cross link between Syria and Israel. Both of these have a history of animosity because of Syrian opposition to have normal ties with Israel. Both countries are still technically at war as Israel is still occupying the Golan Heights. In 2005, Syria was forced to leave Lebanon. This must be considered as a humiliation for it since according to its belief it had protected Lebanon from Israel total occupation.

But ironically it was sections of Lebanese society that allowed their country to be under occupation. During its occupation of southern Lebanon Israel formed an alliance with Christian militias under Michel Aoun.

Syria during its presence/occupation of Lebanon formed tight links with Hezbollah.

So both Syria and Israel, even after their departure from Lebanon left the seeds for future troubles. Israel didn’t surrender Shebbaa Farm to Lebanon, pretending it was part of the Golan. Hence it was Syrian, not Lebanese. Syria -during the period it was warned to leave Lebanon - must have worked to keep its influence there. It must have equipped its resistant allies, especially Hezbollah with weapons as it has left in power President Emile Lahoud, who it has put in power against the will of many prominent politicians like late former PM Rafik Al Hariri.

So Lebanon is theoretically an independent country. But at least since 1975, the year of the start of the civil war, it hasn’t enjoyed a single year of political independence free from outside interference, be it political or military.

The warring parts in the Middle East use Lebanon as a battleground. When they leave it they leave political and military mines behind them. It’s no wonder if it continues to be under such a state. When the peace in the whole region is established, then Lebanon can be an independent state in its own rights.

Take the poll

Free Poll by Blog Flux

Is BBC anti-Israel?

2006-08-24T16:25:00.000Z

The Jerusalem Post has accused the BBC of being anti-Israel. But The BBC should be accountable for reports made by its correspondents. There is an editorial board that works to broadcast balanced news and views. The fact that BBC is allowed to work both in Israel and Lebanon, carrying interviews from the makers and the shakers of the events taking place there shows well it has credibility on both sides.
But there are instances of live programmes like Haveyoursay in which speakers chosen from both sides air their views. There are speakers who are eloquent enough and well informed. They come up with convincing arguments. Others give shallow arguments.

Perhaps some want the BBC to record the programmes and to exercise self-censorship as it is done in some channels where the programmes are government oriented - as live ones can sound embarrassing.

The BBC has a history of ups and downs with Israel. An example of that was its documentary some years ago on Ariel Sharon’s implication in the massacre of Sabra and Shatila.

Let’s not forget its having been banned from Zimbabwe just because of reporting the truth and its being British. Reason enough for Zimbabwe government to expel it because Britain worked to expel it from the Commonwealth, following its farming policy.

As Israel has sophisticated weapons to wage war in Lebanon, it should use sophisticated media to wage media war for its account.

The BBC is an independent organisation. It is financed by the British government but not controlled by it. It has many times stood up to its attempt to censor it. Two examples, its documentary about the IRA more than twenty years ago and its documentary about Iraq alleged possession of mass destructive weapons about two years ago.

The War in Lebanon, Actors & Spectators

2006-08-24T16:22:00.000Z

As Israel is setting the agenda for its military action in Lebanon, ironically to pave the way for an international force after the fight is over, it seems Israel is dictating to the world what should be done. It should wait for the go-ahead from it. So diplomacy under any form is a waste or time. The international community is doing the talking under different forms, sometimes soft, another time tough, while Israel is doing the toughest actions under the eyes of an indignant but passive world.

Hezbollah seems hardened by the effect of the strikes and having its morale lifted through the support it gets inside Lebanon and from some governments and people alike. It must feel that it is remaking history through armed resistance, which , for it, Arab governments in the region have failed to do. It tries to put them to shame by indirectly waging propaganda against them as most of them are US allies and some of them have diplomatic ties with Israel.

Hezbollah must have the rare chance of being under the spotlight internationally. Now it is the subject of talks in every circle. Without such a fight, it could have remained in the dark, known just through its TV channel Al Manar.

Both Israel and Hezbollah try to capitalize on this event. But they don’t seem to have calculated its cost for the present and the future.

Now having the pictures filled with smokes from small and big guns and tumultuous voices from the actors in the scene, the spectators and the critics, the whole action is confusing, making understanding and deduction hard to reach about a scenario that daily needs re-planning.

Consensus on the situation in Lebanon

2006-08-24T16:20:00.000Z

Up to now there seems a consensus in words regarding the situation in Lebanon, especially after Qana tragic incident. The international community is calling for a ceasefire and an end to hostility. Israel government is unanimous on disarming and annihilating Hezbollah politically and militarily, putting this condition to withdraw its forces from Lebanon. Hezbollah is seeking to change the political map of the Middle East by calling for Israel to withdraw from Shebbaa farms. But the animosity between Israel and Hezbollah is so deep that even a territorial settlement will not put an end to the conflict even in the case of a ceasefire. It seems each has the right to exist at the expense of the other as co-existence is a remote possibility.

If there is any comparison to be made for this conflict, it is like a fight in a cowboy film when two heads of a gang get involved in a fight, surrounded by their men or companions who stand watching without intervening until one kills the other or inflict bodily harm on him.

So in this sense, the international community has been standing by to see first which side will have the upper hand before making a gesture that may change the course of the events.

Neighbouring Arab states, especially Syria, can’t intervene militarily as this will mean a declaration of war against Israel. For Syria, it can’t send its troops to Lebanon as its action will be seen as invasion liable to international sanctions. It also knows that it can’t get into such an adventure if it doesn’t have the support of a powerful country like Russia.

Israel is in Lebanon without facing such consequences as it is using the pretext of self-defence after having been “provoked” by Hezbollah which had kidnapped two of its soldiers.

But the powerful countries, especially permanent members of the Security Council, don’t seek an expansion of the conflict. It seems that for them, Hezbollah and Israel in open and unrestrained conflict is a lesser evil than an open war between Israeli army and another Arab army.

The world seems to have reached a consensus that when there is an international crisis of such a magnitude it becomes through time a daily routine, engendering ineffectual debates as it is happening in such areas as Palestinian territories, Iraq and Afghanistan.

When the conflict ends it becomes a history as the Israeli actions against the Palestinians in Southern Lebanon more than 20 years ago or the bloody incidents of Genin in April 2002. So the consensus for the international community seems: watch, talk as much as you can and forget about it altogether.

Hezbollah, a twist or arm or fate?

2006-08-24T16:18:00.000Z

Hezbollah is a Lebanese Islamist Shiite organisation with a military arm and a civilian arm. It can’t take power over as constitutionally not a single party can form a government. Power sharing is based on the representation of Lebanese population according to their faith. For example the President must be Christian and the Prime Minister a Sunni.

Its objectives are to be the arm and voice of those resisting the existence of Israel or having it as a military superpower in the region. It can enjoy support only among Muslim people as the Christians have their distinct way of life. It is the Christians for example who are reluctant to have Palestinian refugees on their soil. This means they don’t want to be involved in conflicts with Israel.
It will take a long time to disarm Hezbollah. It has acquired a pile of weapons during Syrian presence in Lebanon as it has learnt to make its weapons, especially missiles hitting Israel.

As long as it has support now within Lebanon and around the world, especially from those opposed to the US and Israel, it will remain a force to reckon with. Disarming it will mean to close all Lebanese borders and to make house to house search for weapons. Or to leave no stone unturned. As Israel failed to disarm Hamas which operates in a territory not yet recognised as an independent state, it will find it difficult to disarm Hezbollah which operates in an independent state with internationally recognized borders.

A Show of Strength, How long can it last?

2006-08-24T16:14:00.000Z

In this conflict, which is taking place on Lebanon's soil,, Israel is seen as free to do what it deems necessary to defend itself. It has benefited from the toothless world reactions as the international community didn't go as far as to send an international force to protect Lebanon from Israel invasion. Lebanon has become a theatre and the world as spectators who can't come up to the stage to alter the play. Every day becomes a scene and the final act hasn't been played yet for the curtain to fall. Meanwhile, the suspense continues for pro and anti Israel sides.

For Hezbollah, it can't afford to have a long breath to resist Israel without the military and financial support, especially from the outside. With or without Israel, Hezbollah will have to carry its fight even in Lebanon, one of the most liberal countries in the Middle East. Lebanon is a multi-faith society. So it can't impose its beliefs on it without dragging in it into a new civil war.

Lebanon has the right to live in peace. It is known to be one of the most civilised and modern countries in the region. But its geographic situation has made it a battleground between outside forces, especially the Syrians( in the past), the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Hezbollah has to be realistic in its approach in dealing with the situation in Lebanon without counting on countries like Syria and Iran, which gives justification to Israel to widen its military operations in Lebanon, enjoying the support of the US, which sees Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation and not a political wing worthy of treating as a negotiating partner.

The Media Dealing with the War in Lebanon

2006-08-24T16:08:00.000Z

When there is a war, the media step in for coverage. But there are media that are ideologically oriented so they try to edit the events in accordance with their line by using forceful terms to win the hearts and minds of their audience.

The Arab media feel it is a duty to galvanize the Arabs against Israeli actions in Lebanon. Reporting the events objectively without inserting comments on them in favour of the Lebanese by the reporter himself or by an anti-Israeli speaker , also trying to have an interview with an Israeli official on the matter will be considered as a treason, that is siding with Israel or not being involved enough to denounce Israeli military actions. On the Israeli side, before Oslo Peace Accord, any Israeli journalist carrying an interview with a Palestinian politician could face prosecution.

Now that we have media boom through blogs and satellite channels, every side has a large space to put his case through. As many channels have become commercial, first they try to get the feel of their audience and report to them what they want to hear and see. So subjectivity gets over objectivity.

But there are channels like the BBC which does their best to balance their reports. The fact that the debate on the events in Lebanon has attracted thousands of responses, from pro-Israeli to anti-Israeli attitudes, shows that the BBC has won the trust of all sides. It has its reporters on both sides, Lebanon and Israel. Also in the wording of its reports it avoids words that can be considered as biased like "aggression"
or “martyrs”.

Now it has become the responsibility of the audience to make their opinion without seeking someone to tell them how to think. They should get the real background of the story and come with their own analysis. If they can’t make it public, at least they keep it to themselves as a guideline to know how to think instead of being made to think in an imposed way by sides who try to capitalise on events for their own sake.

Prospect of Ending Israel-Hezbollah Fighting

2006-08-24T16:06:00.000Z

It is ironical that the international community, including US stood watching destructive attacks taking place without intervening in the right time. Now after the damages and reciprocal accusations, it seems the conflicting parties will seek diplomatic victory, showing the other side to be the aggressor. As calls from UN, Arab League, EU failed to stop the bloodshed, the US mission in the Middle East will be met with deaf ears as Israel and Hezbollah are trying to make their points their way.
There can be a lull, but the one that precedes the storm. As Hezbollah and Israel are set to make each other's life a hell, the borders between Lebanon and Israel will remain a mine of potential major conflict as it is happening theses days or just the scene of frequent skirmishes as a provocation for an all out conflict. As usual those who decide remain immune from the consequences of this conflict. Only innocent people who are made to pay for this with their belongings, livelihood or lives.

Capture, Resistance & Revenge

2006-08-24T16:04:00.000Z

Hezbollah fighters (picture on the left)
Israeli soldiers in Southern Lebanon

The capture of Israeli soldiers from its southern and northern borders means that factions opposed to Israel in the region are coordinating their method of resistance. Whether it is a coincidence or a planned action, the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers will heighten tension in the region. Hamas government is apparently controlled by its military wing. The Lebanese government has no control over Hezbollah. Israel is apparently fighting militias, which governments from their countries have no control over them but they are controlled by other countries, mainly, Iran and Syria.

If the worst comes to the worst Israel will be obliged to hit targets in Syria to put pressure on it to put pressure on Hamas and Hezbollah to free the soldiers. These militias know in advance they have little to gain from their actions apart from publicity as a strike from them is met by loads of strikes from Israel.

Perhaps great mediators who have credibility among all sides should step in to solve the problem before skirmishes, limited bombardment turns into an all out war, involving Syria, Iran and insurgents from Iraq. Otherwise we will be in the Middle-East revisited prior to Oslo accord with constant Intifada, suicide attacks and strident measures from Israel in the name of legitimate defence

Soldier Kidnapping, Intransigence & Honour

2006-08-24T16:01:00.000Z

The Israeli army must have felt humiliated by the infiltration of Palestinian fighters into its military base, escaping from it after killing two soldiers and kidnapping another. This can put in question their level of vigilance. But politically, both the Israeli and the Palestinians should be pragmatic. The fight should not go on for the sake of a soldier. It should be stopped for the sake of peace. Otherwise, more causalities are to be expected on both sides through attacks and suicide attacks.

Taking the tone of both Hamas and Israeli officials, it seems unlikely the situation will calm down. Hamas refusing to recognise Israel is diplomatically having its back to the wall through the sanctions of the some Quartet members –US & EU – the main aid donors. Hamas has then only the card of continuous struggle to make its presence felt internationally and to keep its credibility among the voters who brought it to government- a government that officiated in paper, which has more link with the media than with influential governments.

As the situation stands, there are two antagonists set to use all means risk everything to defend their principles in a world standing as a witness at worst and coming up with advice for both sides at best .

Soldier Kidnapping & Incursion in Gaza

2006-08-24T15:58:00.000Z

The abduction of Israeli soldier Cpl Gilad Shalit was just a trigger to restart armed animosity between Isreal and radical factions in the Palestinian territories.

There are two facts to draw from Israeli incursion in Gaza. The first is that the military mission is a reminder of the film “Saving Private Ryan” in which soldiers had to do their outmost to save Ryan even if that operation ended in the death of some in the rescue team. Politically, the case is a reminder that the Israeli politicians and the Palestinian radicals are so intransigent that any peaceful compromise is seen by each as a surrender or defeat.

Amidst this high profile tension, Hamas has reiterated its refusal to recognise Isreal. So as previously mentioned the abduction of Israeli soldier Cpl Gilad Shalit is just a pretext to settle issues that are for them a matter of life of death.

The questions is whether the generations of both Israelis and Palestinians -grown to hate and fight one another sometime savagely, another in a chivalry fashion- can accept permanent peace without yearning for the days in which some armed operations were more a sport than an act of defence.

The Palestinians’ and Israelis’ existence is so intertwined, at present with memories of blood and with continuous suspicion. Maybe one day -as France and Germany buried their hatchets after decades of open hostilities to become exemplary neighbours, the Israelis and the Palestinians will wake up to find the dividing wall and the checkpoints having disappeared for good.
29/06/2006 02:33

US Troop Withdrawal from Iraq?

2006-08-24T15:51:00.000Z

US troops’ withdrawal from Iraq must be linked to the level of full political stability, the weakening of insurgence and the geopolitical situation in the region. The US can link its withdrawal with its relations with Iran concerning the nuclear issue. If the US leaves Iraq without settling this issue, Iran will try to weaken the Iraqi government by interfering in its policy by supporting the insurgents, thus creating an atmosphere of war worse than the current security situation in Iraq now.

Even US and British troops' withdrawal from Iraq will be replaced by continuous supervision of the Iraqi army through US & UK military advisers who will continue to train the Iraqi army and to offer military strategic assistance to deal with internal and external security threats. The US in particular will keep a close eye on the functioning of the Iraqi government so it won’t ally with hostile regimes in the region like Iran. It will need to keep a check on Iraq armament so it won’t deviate from the international standards.

So the only benefit from the withdrawal will be for the soldiers in constant risk of kidnapping, injuries and death. Public outcry at home will diminish and the Iraq card won’t be loosely used in political debates and elections. The focus will be on internal matters. For the Pentagon and the American Administration in general, the work will continue to secure stability in Iraq and to have pro-American government in place.
22/06/2006 15:50

On the Situation in Lebanon following clashes between Hezbollah and Israel

2006-08-19T17:46:00.000Z

COMMENTS ON THE SITUATION IN LEBANON

Added: Friday, 28 July, 2006, 13:14 GMT 14:14 UK ‎
In this conflict, Israel is seen as free to do what it deems necessary to defend itself. It ‎has benefited from the toothless international community as it didn't go as far as to ‎send an international force to protect Lebanon from Israel invasion. Lebanon has ‎become a theatre and the world as spectators who can't come up to the stage to alter ‎the play. Every day becomes a scene and the final act hasn't been played yet for the ‎curtain to fall. Meanwhile, the suspense continues for pro and anti Israel sides.‎

Added: Sunday, 6 August, 2006, 06:24 GMT 07:24 UK ‎
There were many international resolutions to end the fighting in Lebanon. But the ‎Middle-East is like a volcano that needs to emit its lava from time to time. As there ‎are political views in both Israel and Lebanon that are vehemently opposed, any ‎resolution will be momentarily applied. Each of the conflicting side during cease fire ‎will seek to weaken the other, resulting in a new show of strength. Peace and violence ‎are cyclical in this part of the world. This should be taken for granted.‎

Added: Thursday, 10 August, 2006, 18:29 GMT 19:29 UK ‎
As long as Israel and Hezbollah are ideologically opposed, each depending on its allies ‎in this conflict, any UN resolution will remain a piece of paper. The end of the conflict ‎is in the hand of Israel and those countries that stand behind Hezbollah. These should ‎reach a compromise based on living and letting live. Any resolution will be ‎implemented momentarily at most as the antagonists feel that they have to carry ‎their policies on their terms regardless of international calls for peace.‎

Added: Monday, 14 August, 2006, 15:20 GMT 16:20 UK ‎
The UN cease-fire resolution didn’t redress the political problems in the Middle East ‎‎like definitive settlement of political borders between Israel and its neighbour states.‎
In view of the complexity of the problem, permanent peace will remain hard to ‎‎achieve unless moderation is reached by all parties directly or indirectly implicated in ‎‎this stalemate. Otherwise, all UN resolutions will remain a piece of paper whose ‎‎wordings can, in itself, give justification for restarting hostilities.‎

COMMENTS ON THE SITUATION IN LEBANON PRIOR TO THE CEASE-FIRE. ‎

In their fight Israel is banking on the explicit and implicit support of great countries ‎like the US. Hamas and Hezbollah are banking on fervent support of Iran & Syria.‎
But as it looks fighting parties are going to extremes in defiance to calls for ‎reasonable actions. It is costly for all, both militarily and humanely. If they continue ‎to depend on outside support, no peace can be achieved as long as allies are standing ‎by for either side, apparently to fuel tensions between them.‎

As long as rhetoric continues to sound along with gun-fires and bullets, any attempt to ‎put a stop to the war between Israel and Hezbollah will fail. Both sides have their ‎allies who they depend on for the continuation of fighting. Iran, main supporter of ‎Hezbollah is exploiting the situation to divert attention from its nuclear programme. ‎Israel is playing on the tune of terror to give legitimacy to its unreserved attacks. The ‎rest of the world is reacting using words rather than action.‎
‎19/07/2006 19:41‎

The conflict between Hezbollah and Israel is a proxy one. Israel supported by USA to ‎fight terrorism in the region is opposed by Hezbollah supported by Iran and Syria the ‎staunch enemies of US & Israel in the region. Iran & Syria have no interest in putting ‎pressure on Hezbollah to free the soldiers. This is used as a pretext to wage ‎unrestrained conflict. Diplomacy is bound to fail as the antagonists try to assert ‎themselves through armed conflict, as none is ready for peaceful negotiations.‎
Wednesday, 19 July 2006‎

The continuing bombardment of Lebanon by Israel will draw more support for ‎Hezbollah around the Muslim world, as it will be seen as the only force capable of ‎confronting Israel. But diplomatically this will slow the peace process in the region. ‎No Arab or Muslim government will be ready to normalise its relations with Israel in ‎the aftermath of its heavy bombardment. The tension will continue. Israel will have to ‎be on guard inside and outside its borders for fear of attacks or suicide attacks.‎
‎21/07/2006 14:10‎

The continuing bombardment of Lebanon by Israel can draw more support for ‎Hezbollah among fanatics. But diplomatically this will slow the peace process in the ‎region. US credibility will suffer more damage as it is seen as the main supporters of ‎Israel. Iran, at odd with the US and Israel because of its nuclear program, can take ‎advantage of the situation by inciting Hezbollah to continue its resistance. In this ‎attacks only the innocent civilians, nationals and foreigners who will pay dearly. ‎
‎21/07/2006 16:25‎

holding a conference on Lebanon in Italy will be just a PR as Israel is intent on ‎dismantling Hezbollah, which means the continuation of Israeli bombardment even ‎after the conference. For the success of the conference, Hezbollah should be ‎represented by Iran. But as anti-Israeli and anti-American feeling is raging in the Arab ‎world, diplomacy will have little chance to repair the damages caused so far. This ‎conference like the Quartet will have little chance to lead to permanent peace.‎
‎21/07/2006 18:43‎

The US diplomatic mission on Lebanon will be just a failure as Israel is intent on ‎dismantling Hezbollah, which means the continuation of Israeli bombardment. For the ‎success of the mission, Israel, Syria & Iran should have direct on this issue But as ‎anti-Israeli and anti-American feeling is raging in the Arab world, diplomacy will ‎have little chance to repair the damages caused so far. Even future conference in Italy ‎will be like the Quartet will have little chance to lead to permanent peace.‎
‎21/07/2006 19:45‎

In this conflict, "progress" is being made in human loss. Diplomatic missions are ‎doomed to failure from the start as call for calm is answered from both sides with ‎powerful attacks.‎
If the international community has failed in solving a complex problem over a small ‎area in the Middle East, it is uncertain the whole problem in the region can be solved, ‎including Palestinian issue. Lebanon is sure to remain a battleground for all sides if a ‎practical diplomatic solution isn't found in due time.‎
‎03/08/2006 13:35‎

Posts to BBC on Palestinian Issues

2006-06-18T15:11:00.000Z

Added: Wednesday, 19 April, 2006, 16:30 GMT 17:30 UK
The Palestinians now having aid cut from the USA and the EU should turn to Iran the main supporter of Hamas. They can depend on wealthy expatriate Palestinians living in the West. Humanitarian organisations like Oxfam should step in. Gulf States can employ more Palestinians to help their staying families. They can't depend on generous help from rich Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, as they don't want to be portrayed as supporters of Hamas considered by the USA as a terrorist organisation.

The Palestinians can’t go on living on international humanitarian aids as this is just the minimum living standard they can get. But to live up to their aspirations they should have economic activities and political independence that can put them on track without tending their hands for permanent outside help. But they can’t achieve this as long as the Palestinian factions , especially, Hamas and Fatah are at odd with one another .Hamas is kept a lame duck inside and outside the Palestinian territories. So the Palestinians as it seems will remain under the care and mandate of international community without achieving their goal for full independence.

Added: Wednesday, 17 May, 2006, 10:46 GMT 11:46 UK
Like religion and state that should be set apart, so should love and politics. Even married couples of the same race can have different political views and vote differently. In the case of mixed marriage in Israel, especially, between Palestinians and Israelis, the risk of terrorism shouldn’t be used as an excuse to stand between human relationships. Isreal has enough means to detect woul-be terrorists. So lovers on both sides should be allowed to enjoy their passion without obstruction.

Added: Wednesday, 17 May, 2006, 11:06 GMT 12:06 UK
Isreal by standing between genuine lovers from the Palestinians and Israelis sides is building another wall between them. Outlawing such relations is another form of its attempt of disengagement from Palestinian affairs. But people have the right to the pursuit of happiness. Love will make people peaceful. Standing in their relations makes them violent. So the law is groundlessly motivated. It is based on xenophobia and it can have the adverse effect in the long run. Richard Bowen

17 May 06, 06:04 PM
Added: Friday, 19 May, 2006, 16:25 GMT 17:25 UK
The Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah by their internal feud are playing in the hand of Israel. While they go about fighting about what action to take to end occupation or resorting to internal armed fight, Isreal exploits this disarray to set a clear agenda for its internal security and how to win diplomatic victories over its policies regarding the Palestinian issues.The Palestinian people, sole victim of this situation, are at crossfire from all sides, paying dearly for such internal feud.

Added: Friday, 19 May, 2006, 16:23 GMT 17:23 UK
The Palestinian factions - Hamas and Fatah - can’t settle their differences by peaceful negotiations. This reinforces the attitude of some that the Palestinian leadership is far from being worthy of an independent state as the Palestinian security forces aren’t yet under a single command, which leads to frequent open armed battles between them, leaving casualties among the population they’re supposed to protect. Maybe, they need an international peace keeping force to keep them apart.
Added: Tuesday, 6 June, 2006, 16:54 GMT 17:54 UK
Generations of Palestinians have lived under armed struggle which begot armed factions with conflicting political agenda to deal with the Palestinian issue. Hamas and Fatah are the main breed of such a situation. As they have never seen eye to eye, referendum or no referendum for implicit recognition of Isreal will not diffuse their differences about Isreal or internal matters. Their internal struggle will be as always to Isreal advantage, further delaying their territorial independence.

Added: Sunday, 11 June, 2006, 17:26 GMT 18:26 UK
The death of seven people, including three children, when Israeli shells hit a beach in Gaza on Friday should not be used to fuel tension in a permanently troubled area. Hamas and Isreal should respect the truce. Continuous reprisal attacks on both sides will create more incidents similar to the beach attack, in which innocent civilians on both sides pay dearly making political agreement an impossibility , especially, between on Israeli and Palestinian hardliners.

IN CONCLUSION

he tragedy of the Palestinians is that they are at crossfire from all sides. After more than 50 years of resistance for independence, their leaders of different factions didn’t manage to come up with a national agreement of what political system they should have that preserve their unity and put them in a strong position to negotiate with the international community about the future state they should have. Isreal, which has a wide influence, especially, in Western Europe and the United States of America exploits this division to delay the setup of a Palestinian state. What has aggravated their cause is the coming of Hamas to power. But Hamas is powerless since it is not recognised by the US and Israel because of its refusal to recognise Isreal and its adopting terrorist attacks against it. This has led to the cut of help to the Palestinians, who unfortunately will continue to pay for the division between Fatah and Hamas and the refusal of Israel to recognise them as a people worthy of full independence. But the international community should consider the Palestinian territories as a disaster zone in view of the state in which it is now and send them humanitarian aid – for them not to fall in famine which can turn into a human catastrophe in the region.Tuesday, 09 May 2006 23:19

Posts to BBC on Iran

2006-06-18T15:08:00.000Z

Added: Friday, 31 March, 2006, 12:39 GMT 13:39 UK
America should firmly deal with Iran nuclear project. Iran’s aim is not for new sources of energy as it has one of the biggest reserves of oil and gas in the world. Its aim is military supremacy to rival the influence of the USA in the region. But as a country governed by a religious dictatorship, Iran should not be allowed to possess nuclear technology enabling it to have nuclear weapons. It will use it just to bully the states in the regions; mainly, those in line with the American policy.

Added: Monday, 10 April, 2006, 11:49 GMT 12:49 UK
It's unlikely the USA will soon carry out a nuclear strike in Iran because it will need at least the tacit agreement of big countries like China and Russia. The turmoil in Iraq may delay such a strike as it can involve the region in trouble by an increase in terrorist attacks. It remains for the US to have a global strategy convincing Iran key partners to bring Iran to negotiations based on the understanding that its nuclear facilities should remain open for continuous inspections.

Added: Monday, 10 April, 2006, 15:25 GMT 16:25 UK
The Iranians must consider the outcome of their intransigence. In case big countries like Russia turn a blind eye to a possible US nuclear strike against Iran, it is the Iranian regime that will loose. The world will go about its business as similar incidences have shown like the invasion of Iraq. In politics what matter are interests. The world will not sacrifice its interests for the sake of Iran. Rhetoric can be heard in institutions and campaigns but realpolitik is a different matter.

Added: Monday, 17 April, 2006, 14:07 GMT 15:07 UK
The Iranian regime by showing more defiance to international community call for abandoning its nuclear program is heading for an international isolation if the US uses its influence on Iran’s key partners like Russia and China to let Iran down. The Iranians should be realistic and adhere to international conventions. They should contribute to world peace mainly in the Gulf region instead of fuelling tension by raising suspicion about their intention of the nuclear technology they're developing.

Added: Monday, 17 April, 2006, 14:51 GMT 15:51 UK
The US and Iran should reach a realistic compromise. They can start by solving their confrontational past. Iran can for example accept the US become part of a permanent international commission to inspect its nuclear facilities and to help it develop its nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. In case of intransigence, it is Iran that will lose if the US uses its influence to isolate Iran internationally, by asking for examples its allies, especially Japan, to stop buying Iran’s oil.

Added: Friday, 28 April, 2006, 12:01 GMT 13:01 UK
Iran has one of the largest reserves of oil and gas in the world. By proceeding to enrich uranium presumably to develop nuclear energy it raises suspicions as its intentions may be for military purposes in a volatile region. Fiery comments by Iranian president about Isreal can support this view. Neighbouring countries, which are allies of the US, can fear Iran nuclear intentions. If Iran succeeds in developing a nuclear bomb it will use it to bully them and to show more defiance to the US.

Added: Sunday, 30 April, 2006, 12:03 GMT 13:03 UK
Iran is playing for time. Its objectives are clear. It seeks more delays of the UN Security Council resolutions about its nuclear programs to have more time to enrich uranium to develop nuclear weapons. Fiery comments by Iranian president about Isreal support this view. Neighbouring countries, which are allies of the US, can fear Iran nuclear intentions if it develops a nuclear bomb. The international community must act swiftly before Iran becomes a de-facto threatening nuclear power.

Added: Monday, 8 May, 2006, 12:03 GMT 13:03 UK
President Ahmadinejad’s letter shows that Iran is looking for a diplomatic solution. But in reality it has started to feel threatened by prospective international isolation in case Russia and China come to a compromise with the US concerning its nuclear program. Now the US seems to be in a strong position. Therefore, the US is unlikely to accept nothing less than the complete halt of Iran nuclear program.

Added: Wednesday, 31 May, 2006, 18:11 GMT 19:11 UK
The Americans agreeing to hold negotiations with Iran about its nuclear programme can diffuse the tension between the two sides if Iran is ready to soften its position and to accept that the international conjuncture won’t allow it to become a nuclear power in a volatile region. But it is unlikely that both sides will come to reconciliation overnight especially, if Iran doesn’t want to be described as easily giving in to international pressure, by agreeing to suspend its nuclear program.

Added: Wednesday, 31 May, 2006, 18:49 GMT 19:49 UK
The Americans are right in offering to start negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. Diplomacy should be given a chance and it can be an opportunity to start confidence building between the two sides after more than 25 years of diplomatic cut. But there is a possibility that such an initiative will be used by the Iranian regime to rally more support at home by trying to appear to be in a strong position and that Iran is a feared unattackable state.

Posts to BBC on Iraq

2006-06-18T14:58:00.000Z

Added: Tuesday, 28 February, 2006, 14:38 GMT 14:38 UK
Iraq looked unified under Saddam through the repression of one section of the Iraqi society and the favouring of another but beneath there was tension. At present, the Sunni can't resign to the fact that they have become minor in Iraq. The Shiaa can't forget their ordeal under Saddam. All this coupled with breeding religious armed factions, it seems Iraq has a long way to go for a stable unity. It can remain in its current geographical boundaries. But the boundaries between these sections will be difficult to dismantle unless they agree to a democratic power sharing without the need for foreign intervention.

Added: Thursday, 16 March, 2006, 19:02 GMT 19:02 UK
The new American raid with such intensity shows that the situation in Iraq is far from stable. The Americans in previous raids were good at striking but the insurgents were also good at hiding and running. The problem will continue as the insurgents find ways to regroup and recruit new members. Such raids show that the American withdrawal from Iraq won't be soon as continuous insurgence give the American an excuse to stay in Iraq as long as possible.

Added: Friday, 17 March, 2006, 11:22 GMT 11:22 UK
The previous raids on insurgents failed to curb violence in Iraq, from suicide bombing to ambush and the like. The Americans can make raids on locations they suspect of harbouring terrorists but so far, they have failed to make a raid on the mind of those who are set to continue their insurgence at whatever cost, including targeting the innocent civilians. Intransigence on both sides will just prolong the instability and the suffering of Iraq, in the name of which an all out war was open.

Added: Thursday, 16 March, 2006, 22:16 GMT 22:16 UK
The Americans have so far failed to crush the insurgents .This provides the insurgents with further support from within and outside Iraq. As America was able to rally support among it allies, especially, Britain, the insurgents managed to expand their network and tactics, making it difficult for America to wipe them out once for all. The current raids can be just a military exercise with little results as the insurgents learn from previous raids how to be ready for the next ones.

The violence in Iraq has gone for a long time. The situation there is a reminder of the former situation in Lebanon during its long years of civil war. The worst scenario is when the Iraqi armed forces will turn into militias disobeying orders and carrying operations on their own in retaliation of future attacks. But as Allawi said it is not yet a non return point. The Iraqi can work out a solution for the current situation if they actively work for a united Iraq using peaceful dialogue instead of the language of explosives, bearing in mind the reality of the region to which they belong. Otherwise the situation will worsen further to the point of catastrophic consequences for the whole region.

Added: Monday, 20 March, 2006, 11:02 GMT 11:02 UK
Iraq still has a long way to go for complete stability. It has become one of the most dangerous places around the world, mainly for foreigners. During the years after the removal of Saddam from power, there were violent attacks some of them leading to instant killing of hundreds. There were kidnapping and sometimes killing of diplomats. Iraq still needs draconian security measures. As the Americans and their allies try to celebrate their presence and achievements, the insurgents make their point by further daily attacks which have become the norm in this troubled country. The only victims of such a situation are the ordinary Iraqis who are caught in the midst of these deadly confrontations.

Added: Friday, 24 March, 2006, 09:59 GMT 09:59 UK
The war in Iraq has portrayed the USA in many countries as an aggressor whose aim is for the oil for the region. But politically speaking, the USA still has the same influence in the region especially on Gulf States. Its relations with international key players like Russia and China is improving considering the economic deals. So far, very few countries have withdrawn from the coalition in Iraq. In a sense, the US foreign policy is a portrayal of common interests. It has been damaged at the public level, but at the level of relation with other governments, it’s business as usual.

From past events in Iraq, it seems difficult to predict a fast end to violence and a return to stability. The imprisonment of Saddam and some of his associates did little to stop insurgency. So did the election of a new parliament. As long as power sharing is based on majority in parliament,; that is, on sectarian affiliation –Shiaa, Sunni and Kurds- the new prime minister will have difficulty to curb sectarian violence if he can’t bring hardliners on all sides to a compromise for power sharing.

Added: Sunday, 23 April, 2006, 10:24 GMT 11:24 UK
As long as power sharing is based on majority in parliament; that is, on sectarian affiliation –Shiaa, Sunni and Kurds- the new prime minister will have difficulty to curb sectarian violence if he can’t bring hardliners on all sides to a compromise for power sharing, including religious leaders who have a big influence in Iraq. Also his government should be able to improve the living standard of the Iraqis as a way to stop the deprived Iraqis from joining armed groups or supporting them.

Added: Sunday, 7 May, 2006, 10:32 GMT 11:32 UK
The end of violence in Iraq is in the hands of the Iraqis. Using the presence of foreign forces for continuing violence is a pretext since infighting will continue with or without these forces. these can leave but the Iraqi sections –religious and political -must leave their feud aside and work democratically for a peaceful Iraq, each taking due responsibility. Otherwise, an Iraq free of foreign forces will plunge it in worse bloodshed.

Added: Sunday, 7 May, 2006, 10:32 GMT 11:32 UK
The end of violence in Iraq is in the hands of the Iraqis. Using the presence of foreign forces for continuing violence is a pretext since infighting will continue with or without these forces. these can leave but the Iraqi sections –religious and political -must leave their feud aside and work democratically for a peaceful Iraq, each taking due responsibility. Otherwise, an Iraq free of foreign forces will plunge it in worse bloodshed.

Added: Wednesday, 31 May, 2006, 13:12 GMT 14:12 UK
The British and American military presence in Iraq has been plagued by scandals from prisoners’ abuse to accidental killing of civilians in attacks on insurgents. The alleged killing of 24 civilians in Hadittha by American soldiers can stir insurgents for more deadly attacks . Instead of thinking of reducing its troops, the US may think about backup troops to deal with ongoing insurgency. The danger can be a huge popular uprising among shiaa and Sunni against American presence in Iraq.

Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 13:27 GMT 14:27 UK
Israeli attack on Iraq nuclear reactor 25 years ago should be seen as a proxy attack. The US couldn’t do it because of the Cold War and the turbulent situation in the Middle East. But it took Saddam 10 years to take his revenge when he sent scud missiles to Isreal in 1991, although the damage wasn’t devastating. Isreal seemed to have benefited from this attack by destroying a threatening reactor and by showing its military capability outside its borders to enemy states in the region like Syria.

Added: Monday, 5 June, 2006, 13:58 GMT 14:58 UK
Isreal is good at hitting targets, people and buildings alike, inside and outside its borders. It mounted an attack against Iraq’s nuclear reactor. It raided Abu Jihad’s home in Tunisia and killed him. So this is an opportunity for the US to ask her to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations on its behalf as it ran away with 1981 similar attack. Negotiations are long and tiring. Attacks are swift and decisive. Isreal will be glad to show the world how good it is at hit and run operations.
Added: Thursday, 8 June, 2006, 11:18 GMT 12:18 UK

Al-Zarqawi's death should be seen as winning a battle but there is still the war on terrorism that should continue. The capture of Saddam just fuelled more attacks so it is probably that Al-Zarqawi's terrorist network will try to carry out more attacks if the American and the Iraqi forces can’t get similar reliable information that led to his death, to arrest or kill those likely to carry resistance with the same force as Al-Zarqawi's did.

Added: Sunday, 11 June, 2006, 12:58 GMT 13:58 UK
Many detainees in Guantanamo Bay seek suicide to achieve fame and become symbol of martyrdom. But the US had better start their trial on its soil or in an international court. The world must know the specific charge of each detainee . Keeping them in detention without trial will just tarnish the image of the US, which set itself as the champion of human rights. More suicide will cause more embarrassment and damage to the US, fuelling more suicide attacks in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Added: Sunday, 11 June, 2006, 15:48 GMT 16:48 UK
The suicide of Guantanamo detainees should be seen a moment to reflect upon the raison d’être of this detention centre. It’s a reminder of former Japanese detention centres in the US during the WWII where the Japanese were detained because their country was at war with the US. If the principle is “a suspect is innocent until proven guilty”, the US should publish the other charges against the detainees apart from being caught in Afghanistan fighting for Bin Laden. Then their trial must start.

Added: Sunday, 11 June, 2006, 12:58 GMT 13:58 UK
Many detainees in Guantanamo Bay seek suicide to achieve fame and become symbol of martyrdom. But the US had better start their trial on its soil or in an international court. The world must know the specific charge of each detainee . Keeping them in detention without trial will just tarnish the image of the US, which set itself as the champion of human rights. More suicide will cause more embarrassment and damage to the US, fuelling more suicide attacks in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Added: Tuesday, 13 June, 2006, 13:18 GMT 14:18 UK
The situation in Iraq is everybody’s responsibility. People in responsibility from top to bottom should have clean hands. All must do away with corruption and violence. The wealth of Iraq, especially, oil must equitably be shared by the Iraqis regardless of geographical situations. As Iraq is made of Shia, Sunni and Kurds, these sections should have practical autonomy within national unity. But continuing to wrangle about the style of government indefinitely will make Iraq permanently unstable.

Added: Tuesday, 13 June, 2006, 12:59 GMT 13:59 UK
Iraqis had the hard luck of being in constant crises from the start of the Iran-Iraq War, the economic embargo following Kuwait invasion by Saddam. Their economic hardship has become coupled by continuous violence, which replaced Saddam’s repressive measures. Iraqi need security. Without it, any economic project like electricity or water pipes can be vandalised by insurgents or criminals. National security can be achieved through national trust between the different sections of Iraqi society.

Many seemingly turning point events did little to change the situation in Iraq after US invasion of Iraq. Parliament setup, constitution daft and government formation didn’t yield any result yet. In the US, many people are weary of war; some had enough of news like Saddam’s capture or his trial or al- zarqawi death violence continues. So some are also tired of promises of a good future for Iraq. So Bush’s visit is a PR for morale lifting for the Iraqis government and the US troops in Iraq.

IN CONCLUSION

Iraqis had the hard luck of being in constant crises from the start of the Iran-Iraq War, the economic embargo following Kuwait invasion by Saddam. Their economic hardship has become coupled by continuous violence, which replaced Saddam’s repressive measures. Iraqi need security. Without it, any economic project like electricity or water pipes can be vandalised by insurgents or criminals.The situation in Iraq is everybody’s responsibility. People in responsibility from top to bottom should have clean hands. All must do away with corruption and violence. The wealth of Iraq, especially, oil must equitably be shared by the Iraqis regardless of geographical situations. National security can be achieved through national trust between the different sections of Iraqi society. As Iraq is made of Shiva, Sunni and Kurds, these sections should have practical autonomy within national unity. But continuing to wrangle about the style of government indefinitely will make Iraq permanently unstable.As we say, God helps he who helps himself. Iraqis can't continue depending utterly on outside help - foreign forces for their security or the good intentions of their neighbours. They should have good intentions towards one another and defend their security as one nation.

BBC NEWS | World Have Your Say | Your World: Marrakesh Morocco

2006-06-13T03:13:00.000Z