Showing posts with label Gaza Strip. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gaza Strip. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Change of Reign in Egypt: Mohammed Morsi Becomes Country’s First Democratically Elected President


Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) leader Mohammed Morsi has won the presidential election runoff, defeating the independent candidate Ahmed Shafik, the last prime minister to the deposed dictator Hosni Mubarak, with 13.2 million votes out of 26 million, a share of 51.2 per cent on a turnout of just over 50 per cent.

However, the outcome of the election does not settle the standoff between the Brotherhood and the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), which did not even wait for the result before taking a series of steps which some Egyptians have called a constitutional obscenity. One crucial move was made by the constitutional court, made up of judges from the time of Mubarak, which unilaterally dissolved the national parliament. That body – elected between November 2011 and March 2012 in Egypt’s first-ever free polls – was to write a constitution for the new state.

Armed Forces’ Tradition Broken
Muslim Brotherhood's Mohammed Morsi will not enjoy the extent of modern, pharaonic powers exercised by Mubarak: those have been curtailed by a military establishment which will decide just how much he will be able to do in government.

Still, the US-trained engineer's victory in the country's first free presidential election breaks a tradition of domination by men from the armed forces, which have provided every Egyptian leader since overthrow of the monarchy 60 years ago, and installs in office a group that drew on 84 years of grassroots activism to catapult Morsi into presidency.

First Civilian Head of State
An engineer turned politician, Mohammed Morsi has come a long way to become the first freely elected President of Egypt that saw its strongman Hosni Mubarak being ousted in what is now famously called Arab Spring. Although, not their first choice as a presidential candidate, the powerful Muslim Brotherhood threw its weight behind Morsi, 60, the chairman of its FJP. A champion of Brotherhood's famous slogan - "Islam is the solution" - Morsi describes its policies as having "a moderate Islamic reference". A more quietly-spoken man, Morsi got the support of Brotherhood's grassroots network and what is often referred to as an highly organized campaign team.

Morsi’s win in an election widely seen as free and fair suggests that the 84-year-old Islamist group — which began as a secret outfit, often resorted to violence and was continually suppressed and driven underground — remains Egypt’s most influential party, drawing its support from all corners of society.

On the one hand he has been directly chosen by the people, but on the other there are fears that his regime may sooner than later push the country to a hard line form of Islamic rule. Since it is too early to speculate with any amount of certainty, it is better to simply use the material at hand and peep into the possibilities ahead.

To begin with, Morsi is Egypt’s first democratically elected President — and that fact needs to be heartily endorsed. He is also his country’s first civilian president, and thus his election presents a strong break from the past where men in uniform imposed themselves on the nation as its rulers. This again should not be a cause of concern for New Delhi because it will now have to deal with elected representatives rather than military generals. Of course, India never seemed to have had much of a problem with the earlier Hosni Mubarak Government, but that regime is now history and the former has to now do business with a new set of people that has a popular mandate at least.

New Prez’s Manifesto
Morsi has promised a moderate, modern Islamist agenda to steer Egypt into a new democratic era where autocracy will be replaced by transparent government that respects human rights and revives the fortunes of a powerful Arab state long in decline. He is promising an "Egyptian renaissance with an Islamic foundation."

Yet the stocky, bespectacled 60-year old, appears something of an accidental president: he was only flung into the race at the last moment by the disqualification on a technicality of Khairat al-Shater, by far the group's preferred choice.

With a stiff and formal style, Morsi, who has a doctorate from the University of Southern California, cast himself as a reluctant late comer to the race, who cited religious fear of judgment day as one of his reasons for running. He struggled to shake off his label as the Brotherhood's "spare tire."

However, questions remain over the extent to which Morsi will operate independently of other Brotherhood leaders once in office: his manifesto was drawn up by the group's policymakers. The role Shater might play has been one focus of debate in Egypt.

Undoubtedly, the historic nature of the win can hardly be underestimated. Given Egypt’s size, historical importance and cultural and political preeminence in the Arabic-speaking world, it is not unlikely that an Islamist democracy advocated by the FJP, the Brotherhood’s political wing that Morsi led to a signal victory, can potentially become a model for West Asia and North Africa.

Future Equation
The FJP has been issuing statements that it proposes to offer a liberal regime and honor past accords and agreements. Morsi is also reported to have emphasized over and over again that he would ensure that international commitments agreed on are not dismantled. This is good news, but the challenge for the new president will be to implement his promise in the face of pressures that he is certainly going to face from hard line factions within his party and others as well to chart a new and probably more confrontationist course of action.

The victory of the Islamists, whose offshoot HAMAS rules in Gaza Strip (also having got there through an election), cannot but be bad news for Israel, which has operated a peace agreement with Egypt’s military rulers since the days of Anwar Sadat, and whose political position has defined the conflict in the region for 60 years.

For the millions of Egyptians who endured savage repression for decades and then brutal violence when they rose against the erstwhile dictatorship in 2011, the democratic election of a president is a major step forward.

Indications of the past days are that Morsi will use moderate Islam as a reference in framing his policies. He can do otherwise only at the cost of alienating Egypt’s existing and potential allies across the world and destabilizing the uneasy peace that exists between the Arab world and Israel.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Peace Process, Power Balance in Middle East

The action taken by the President of the United States Barack Obama to open the door of discussion between Washington and Damsyik can be deemed as a manifestation of his open attitude toward the Islamic world. This is what Obama promised when he spoke in Cairo on 4 June 2008. His Cairo speech is historical because it is considered as the starting point from which Washington opened up the room for negotiation to all Islamic countries, regardless they are friends of foes.

Restoration of Ties
The diplomatic ties between these two countries have broken since the assassination of the Prime Minister of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri in 2005, which was allegedly masterminded by Syria. The restoration of the ties will culminate at the appointment of the new US ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford. The appointment is only pending approval from the US Senate.

It is noteworthy that since the incident in 2005, Washington had recalled its ambassador in Damsyik, until today. Senator John Kerry, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations only visited to Syria last week and had an opportunity to discuss with President Bashar al-Assad about bilateral relations and peace process in Middle East. It is so evident that the relations between the US and Syria is moving toward a better path.

Objections Raised
Washington's implicit agenda to befriend Damsyik is used as a catalyst for stability in Middle East, especially in relation to issues involving Iran. The US hopes to isolate Teheran and in turn weaken Hamas fighters in Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Obama's strategy to be friendly to Damsyik received objections especially from the Republican Party and Israel. They object for the reason that Damsyik still provides assistance to Hezbollah group, which is defined by Washington as a terrorist group.

Groups doubtful of Damsyik got an opportunity they were waiting for when the President of Israel, Shimon Peres, accused Syria of having provided Scud missiles to Hezbollah. Peres made the accusation when he visited to Paris last week, though it could not be proved with solid evidence.

It is no longer a secret that Damsyik indeed sympathizes Hezbollah by providing weapons, but it has never provided Hezbollah long-range missiles. If the accusation is true, then the fact that Hezbollah possesses Scud missiles could alter the power balance, especially between Lebanon, Iran, Palestine and Israel.

Considering Hezbollah was capable to defeat the troops of the Israeli regime in 2006 without Scud, with the more accurate long-range missiles, Hezbollah would definitely be capable of giving an impact as terrific as the scenario wherein Iran presumably possesses nuclear arms.

Syria indeed has the North Korean-made missiles, Scud D, which can strike a target 700 km away. If it is launched from Lebanon, Scud D can strike Jerusalem as well as Tel Aviv. In addition to its accuracy in hitting the target, Scud D also has good precision. Therefore important targets such as Dimona nuclear plant which is said to be the pulse of Israel's nuclear arsenal can be easily destroyed. Similarly, other targets such as Ben-Gurion airport can also be struck easily with Scud D.

Insincere Israeli Attitude
Although Peres's allegation cannot be verified yet, the implication is already felt and the first will probably be that the Senate would not approve the appointment of new ambassador to Damsyik. If the accusation is true, then they obviously have violated the Resolution 1701 of the United Nations Security Council intended to end the war between Israel and Hezbollah.

However, if we examine carefully, to deliver Scud to Lebanon is a rather difficult task. The southern part of the country is a Hezbollah-influenced area monitored by the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). The Malaysian Armed Forces (MAF) also participates in the peacekeeping team through the Malaysian battalion (Malbatt).

Many analysts are of the view that the actual motive behind Tel Aviv's wild allegation was to fail the endeavor undertaken by Obama administration to start a new peace process in Middle East. It is not exaggerating if we say White House has started to get bored with Benjamin Netanyahu's insincere attitude in the efforts of seeking solution.

Netanyahu's recent announcement of constructing new illegal Jewish settlements in Jerusalem was akin to a slap to Obama's ongoing effort to assure the Islamic world that there would not be new illegal settlement during his tenure as the president.

There are rumors saying that White House has prepared a new plan for peace in Middle East, which clearly outlines the concept of two sovereign countries -- Palestine and Israel. To fail the latest effort, Tel Aviv has resorted to the factor of Hezbollah as a shortcut to undermine the authority of Obama administration when facing the issues of Middle East.

Tel Aviv dared to take such an approach as Washington itself refuses to acknowledge Hezbollah as a legitimate representative of the Lebanese people.

Presence of Hezbollah Parliamentarians
We should note that the presence of Hezbollah parliamentarians formed a main factor for the establishment of a Unity Government under Prime Minister Saad Hariri. Similar situation happens in Gaza Strip where Hamas is defined as a terrorist group while it is also a legitimate government.

But if Peres's allegation is true, for sure it would not only alter the political landscape in Middle East, it would also bring impacts to the region of Middle East. Hezbollah equiped with Scud would definitely countervail the arrogance of the Israeli regime.

Tel Aviv will be more careful in issuing threat to destroy Iran's nuclear plant like what it did on Syria in 2007. Likewise, it will be more restrained with its arbitrary actions against the Palestinians. It is not overboard to assume that Hezbollah equipped with Scud will actually speed up the peace process in Middle East, instead of retarding it as alleged by some quarters.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Israeli Premier's Stand Challenge to US Administration

The disagreements between the administration of US President Barack Obama and the Israeli Government, led by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, over the settlement activity in occupied Jerusalem have increased. According to US dailies, these disagreements were clearly evident at the latter's meetings and tense talks with US officials.

Internal and External Interests
Netanyahu considers himself more powerful than the US President and his administration's officials because he enjoys great support from the two largest establishments in the United States, the Congress and the Jewish lobby, AIPAC (American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee). Therefore, he appeared uninterested in the calls on him to halt the settlement activity and go back to the table of indirect negotiations with the Palestinian side.

This arrogant stand on the part of the Israeli prime minister constitutes the greatest challenge, not only to President Obama, but also to the entire governing US establishment. This challenge makes it incumbent on the governing US establishment to confront the Israeli prime minister forcefully and effectively in a way that will serve the United States' internal and, particularly, external interests.

Successive Israeli Governments rebelled against the White House in the past, but the disagreements and crises that resulted from their action were not so serious that they were difficult to contain or overcome. The current crisis, however, is completely different in terms of its timing and the magnitude of dangers that it entails.

Wars in Region
The United States is currently fighting two ferocious wars in the region, one in Iraq and the other in Afghanistan. At least about a quarter of a million US soldiers are taking part in these two wars, and the Israeli settlement activities and acts of aggression began to have a negative effect on the US soldiers in these two wars, as was admitted by Commander of the US Central Command David Petraeus.

What we mean to say is that the United States cannot contain the current crisis through the same means that it used to contain previous crises. In addition, Israel currently suffers a quasi international isolation and increasing campaigns of hatred in the circles of the peoples of its allies in the Western states, namely in Europe.

Aggression Against Gaza Strip
Israel is no longer the only democratic state in the Middle East that represents the Western culture and abides by the law. Rather, it has become a terrorist rogue state in the eyes of many people following the war crimes that it committed during its latest aggression against the Gaza Strip and after it used the passports of more than six Western states (the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Ireland, Australia, and Italy) in assassinating martyr Mahmud al-Mabhuh. Al-Mabhuh, one of the founders of the military wing of the Islamic Resistance Movement, HAMAS, was assassinated in an allied and peaceful state, the United Arab Emirates.

We do not know who will emerge as a winner in the current conflict between Obama and Netanyahu, between the president of a superpower and the prime minister of a small state that cannot live or rather survive without the former's support and backing. What we do know, however, is that the United States is the loser so far, only because this crisis broke out the way we saw, which was humiliating to the United States and to its international and regional standing.

Freezing Settlement Activity
What is certain is that the United States will not give up its Israeli ally because of the current crisis. On the other hand, Netanyahu will not make it easy for the United States to back down on its current stand on the need to halt or freeze the settlement activity to save what has remained of the peace process, which is truly collapsed. Netanyahu announced that occupied Jerusalem is not a settlement, but an eternal capital for the State of Israel.

What is noticeable is the fact that the Arab states are standing as spectators and not trying to help their US ally in such a confrontation with Israel. But this is not a strange stand because these states have no weight and value and are accustomed to living on the sidelines and to receiving insults and slaps.

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Israel's Challenge to US Calls To Halt Settlement Activity

The US envoy to the Arab region, Senator George Mitchell, begins a new tour during which he meets with Arab and Israeli officials under the theme of "advancing the peace process and looking for ways to overcome the obstacles that stand in its way."

US-Israeli Tension
This tour is different from the previous ones as it comes amid US-Israeli tension because of Benjamin Netanyahu's defiance of the US Administration's calls to freeze the settlement activity and dismantle the illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.
Netanyahu refused to present any commitment to freezing the settlement Activity during his recent visit to the White House. His aides bragged about this stand and considered it a sign of strength and firmness. This stand prompted his foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, to "reprimand" Senator Mitchell and lecture him on how what he termed Israeli concessions through a withdrawal from the Gaza Strip led to an increase in the rocket attacks on Israeli towns and settlements in the south.
Nothing has changed since Mitchell's last tour about one and a half months ago. The Israeli settlements are expanding on the pretext of natural growth and Lieberman continues to hold his post as Foreign Minister, while Netanyahu gave the Israelis a free hand to settle unconditionally in occupied East Jerusalem. Furthermore, his government issued decisions to confiscate Palestinian lands in occupied Jerusalem and build 50 housing units in the Shaykh Jarrah Neighborhood of Jerusalem.
We do not know how Senator Mitchell and his administration will deal with this Israeli challenge. Until now, this administration has been contented with expressing its "resentment" of and "opposition" to the settlement activity without taking any practical punitive steps.

Paying Price for Verbal Opposition
What we fear most is that this administration might ask the Arabs to immediately pay a price for its verbal opposition to the settlement activity by taking normalization steps with Israel, such as opening their airspace to Israeli flights, activating the trade exchange, and opening trade offices in occupied Jerusalem.
The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the Arabs' presentation of a peace initiative alone is not enough. She added that normalization steps must be taken to explain this initiative and reassure the Israeli public opinion and Government by showing how serious the Arabs are toward peace.
The first and most prominent response to Ms Clinton's call came from the heir apparent of Bahrain, Shaykh Salman Bin-Hamad Al Khalifah. He wrote an article in the US Newspaper the Washington Post in which he called on the Arabs to move toward the Israelis through the Israeli media to facilitate the peace efforts between the Arabs and Israelis. He said: "We, the Arabs, have not done enough to directly communicate with the Israeli people."
The US State Department immediately welcomed the Bahraini heir apparent's article and asked Senator Mitchell to go to Manama to congratulate him on his stand and to convey the US Administration's thanks to him and to his government.

US Stand Towards Arab-Israeli Conflict
There is no argument over the fact that the current US Administration's stand towards the Arab-Israeli conflict is totally different from that of the former administration that was led by George Bush and the group of the neo conservatives.
However, as Arabs and particularly as Palestinians, we must not pay the price for this difference in advance by reversing the Arab peace initiative in order for us to begin full normalization before a complete withdrawal.