• 
  

• Archives

  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007

• Blogroll

  • Abu Aardvark
  • Arabist
  • Beirut Beltway
  • Beirut Spring
  • City Boy Blog
  • Conflict Blotter
  • Crossroads Arabia
  • EU Referendum
  • Foreign Policy Watch
  • Iraq The Model
  • Librocrat
  • Pajamas Media
  • Serendip
  • Show Me The Rules
  • The Moderate Voice

• Daily News Sites

  • Al-Ahram Weekly
  • American Thinker
  • BBC News - ME
  • CNN - ME
  • Daily Star - Egypt
  • Daily Star - Lebanon
  • Dutch News
  • Haaretz
  • International Herald Tribune
  • Jerusalem Post
  • Khaleej Times
  • ME Times
  • MENL
  • NOW Lebanon
  • Spiegel International
  • Yahoo News - Mid East

• ME Reform

  • Fora TV
  • Free Muslims Coalition
  • Ibn Khaldun Center For Developmental Studies
  • Mideast Youth
  • Nora Younis

•  

•  

  

I highlighted a report on the Muslim Brotherhood earlier in the day; here’s one from Amr Hamzawy and Mohammed Herzallah of the Carnegie Endowment on the recent local elections in Egypt nearly a week and a half ago. The argument here is basically that these elections signify a backward trend of political progress in the country. The authors point to a reversion of behavior by the regime to its more autocratic methods of political practice in this recent election cycle, as well as the issue of inflation and unemployment which have been plaguing the country (recently Western media sources have been covering what is being referred to as the “Bread Crisis“, and similar effects around the world).

The authors then tackle the issue of the MB’s decision to boycott the April 8th elections, which came the day before and was issued in the face of a familiar series of crackdowns on the group from the government. The government had imprisoned nearly 1,000 Brotherhood members and the majority of candidates which the group had planned to field, placing the decision to boycott in an understandable context. Hamzawy and Herzallah argue, however, that this decision by the Brotherhood should call into question whether the country indeed has a legitimate opposition group which is capable of advancing an agenda of political freedom and reform. An excerpt from that section of the report follows:

Notwithstanding the regime’s intransigence and its violations of the law, the irregular attitude with which the Muslim Brotherhood approached the local election crisis stands in conspicuous contrast to the consistent participatory approach to which it had committed earlier. In an interview conducted in late February, a few days after the Brotherhood announced that it would
participate in the local elections, Muhammed Habib, the first deputy of the General Guide, outlined the chief reasons behind his movement’s commitment to participation in the April local elections despite all the restrictions. He emphasized preserving an active channel of communication with the public to exchange ideas and programs, underscoring the movement’s commitment to peaceful reform, keeping the public space in a dynamic condition in the face
of continued undemocratic pressures, maintaining a positive public atmosphere, and sustaining vigor and debate within the Brotherhood’s ranks.

Various statements made by the Muslim Brotherhood expressed similar sentiments and stressed that the Brotherhood’s cause is legitimate and protected by the Egyptian constitution. On the whole, the fact that the movement was determined to run in the elections was not in question. Indeed, participation at all costs offered the Brotherhood a valuable opportunity to challenge the regime’s power and demonstrate its ability to remain a vital force in Egyptian politics. In an interview on April 5, Mahmoud Izzat, a member in the Brotherhood’s Guidance Bureau, stated that the movement would not boycott the elections regardless of what happened.7 The fact that
Izzat made this statement two days before the Brotherhood announced its boycott of the elections indicated that the final decision had been made hastily and had not been subjected to extensive internal deliberations.

To the degree that the movement intended to retaliate for the regime’s flagrant actions, its decision may not pay off. After all, keeping the Muslim Brotherhood out of the local councils was the intention of the ruling establishment in the first place. What’s more, the movement is setting a dangerous precedent that the regime will certainly keep in mind: through sufficient political persecution and repression, the authorities can count on the Brotherhood to take itself voluntarily out the political equation.

You can find the full report here.

In keeping with a similar theme to a previous post of mine (in response to a post at FPWatch), I thought this report by Joshua Stacher was worth a small write-up.  Some may remember his article published last year in the Boston Globe along with Samer Shahata arguing that in light of the Brotherhood’s electoral successes, a policy of engagement is warranted.The attitudes towards the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in the West are beginning to change, and despite some long-held reservations about the group Western governments seem to be opening up to the idea of responsible engagement with a major Islamist force in the region. 

While I generally have little problem with the notion of talking to the Muslim Brotherhood, a change from the current prevailing policy of non-engagement would not come without its share of implications.  Firstly, as Stacher makes note of in his report, there are many ‘grey areas’ surrounding the MB.  These include “political pluralism,the use of violence, the principles of equal citizenship and universal human rights, and the relationship between religion and state.” Yet with this acknowledgement two policy recommendations are made concerning the relationship of Western governments towards the MB. What I find laudable about these recommendations is that they are presented in the context of the Egyptian political landscape as a whole. While I can’t find the paper to link to right now, I have argued in the past that while increased engagement of the countries’ theocrats is warranted, it should not come at the expense of Egypt’s other political factions, no matter how ineffective they have proven to be. In other words, the West should not embolden the theocrats at the expense of the democrats in the country, who equally have not been given a fair playing field to run their political activities. Stacher presents his recommendations in this context, one which I think is missing at times in other analyses of Western policy towards the MB.

The two recommendations are essentially that the West should increase its pressure on the Egyptian government for political reform which would allow for plurality in the system, while increasing efforts to open up channels of communication between the country’s opposition parties, including the MB. According to the executive summary, a future report is in the works which will highlight some of the more critical aspects of these policy recommendations and their implications. 

I am no fan of the Brotherhood, and will continue to have my reservations against the group.  However a broader policy of communication with both the theocrats and democrats of Egypt’s political opposition, with care taken not to promote any particular group and stimulate the freedom political activity in the country, would be in the interest of the country as a whole.

You can download the entire report here.

Update: Here is a previous post of mine over at MidEastYouth, in which I expressed some of my reservations towards the Muslim Brotherhood’s position as Egypt’s political opposition, with an important quote from Saad Eddin Ibrahim.  I was arguing for an empowerment of the ’silent majority’ Ibrahim speaks of through conditional U.S aid to Egypt:

The fact of the matter is Egypt, and the regime ruling it is extremly dependant on U.S support, which they have maintained through the illusion of the Muslim Brotherhood as the main political opposition. Secular parties are banned from forming or even gathering, charged with fabricated accusations of crime and effectively marginalised, yet to much less media fanfare than news of Brotherhood members being arrested. This is not unintentional, and as democracy activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim said in a recent interview (asked about the Brotherhood being the largest opposition group link:

We could not organize rallies, we could not organize marches or demonstrations because of emergency laws. Emergency laws have been in effect since 1981, since the assassination of President [Anwar] Sadat. So for the last 26 years, these emergency laws have prevented secularists from going out and organizing and mobilizing.

On the other hand, the Muslim Brothers have the mosques, and that is an advantage that is without design probably by the regime, but it has played in their favor. Meanwhile, I do not like to exaggerate their constituency because despite the fact that they have freer space to move in, still their share in the last Egyptian parliamentary election was 20 percent out of the 20 percent [of registered voters who actually voted]. So, 77 percent of the registered voters did not like to vote for them, nor to vote for the regime. And that is a 77 percent that I consider to be the silent majority, the potential constituency for liberal-democratic parties whenever liberal-democratic parties are allowed full freedom to operate.

An issue of much deliberation in the blogosphere lately has been the initiation of negotiations with Hamas. Former U.S President Jimmy Carter has recently made his intentions known, once again, that he’d favor meeting with the Palestinian group in light of the increasing failure of the current American policy of isolation. Barack Obama has issued a weak statement in opposition to the proposed meeting between Carter and Khaled Meshaal in Syria next week, citing Hamas’ refusal to recognize Israel and its status as a terrorist organization as his reasons. A recent post by Jeb Koogler over at FPWatch, a blog which I’d highly recommend for daily reading, takes umbrage at the presidential candidate’s statement and expresses disappointment at a lack of courage in Obama’s position to speak out against the Bush administration’s failing policy of isolation and containment. I found myself responding to this post by debating out loud the words displayed on my computer screen, not necessarily in disagreement with Jeb but with an interest to examine the implications of Carter’s meeting.

First, allow me to address the issue of Barack Obama in this discussion. While the consensus is that his response has been politically calculated, it was also weak at best and may serve to put some of his other positions into perspective. If a precondition for negotiation is the recognition of Israel, then U.S allies such as Saudi Arabia should accordingly be treated differently with regards to foreign policy. The current president has met with many heads of state whom have yet to recognize Israel. If the same conditions posed for a meeting with Hamas are applied to Iran, whose president Obama has indicated he is willing to meet with, his proposal suffers similar scrutiny. My take on Obama’s position towards meeting with America’s adversaries was that it was rooted in a moral and logical conviction, one which I was impressed by because of his perceived candor. His promised break from the failed policies of the past was refreshing, albeit slightly disconcerting if only for the inability to predict the implications of an alternative policy. Yet in light of his position towards Carter’s visit, Jeb’s expressed sentiment of disappointment is one I share.

However another aspect of this discussion which is conducive to disappointment has been the lack of mention of the metrics with which success of such a policy will be measured. In the same way the current policy of isolation and the insistence on preconditions for negotiations have had no historical precedent, the engagement of an Islamist group by the West with aim to push it towards moderacy has no precedent either. Therefore the advocacy of negotiations should not be cast as a solution to the crisis, but as a step towards eradicating a mentality which has caused such policy predicaments.

Looking solely at Carter’s visit though, I am tempted to declare that the reaction it is receiving from pundits and bloggers has been much ado about nothing. While providing the potential for a serious debate on the implications of such a policy, should it ever be officially adopted, the ensuing reaction has failed to deliver. For starters, a visit by Jimmy Carter will not realistically achieve anything significant, other than perhaps to attract a fair share of media coverage. I have not yet read what it is his visit is aiming to accomplish. Reports suggest “that the discussions will cover the issues of truce, prisoner swap and Palestinian reconciliation.” The Saudis and Egyptians have been negotiating these issues, with little success. The issues dividing the Palestinian factions are deeply nuanced. Carter will be attempting to accomplish what others have not been able to, and without any backing from an official body directly involved in the conflict.

And if it is not necessarily the intention of the former president to broker some sort of peace in the near future, his visit will be seen as an exercise of legitimizing Hamas in the eyes of the world. While one may argue that this is necessarily inevitable, given the support Hamas receives at home, without any significant change in U.S foreign policy this legitimization will only serve to anger allies who have been working within the realm of American policy to prescribe some sort of peace to the region. It could shift the moral authority in the way of Hamas, contrasting the U.S policy of isolation with its defiance by one of the country’s former leaders, and placing a measure of empathy on a group which has waged campaigns of terror in order to prevent peace in the past. It could potentially upset allies like Egypt, who will suffer from the parallel of increased engagement with Hamas with their treatment of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In principle, I am not an advocate of isolation and boycott. The United States should talk to some of its adversaries, given that there are predetermined goals which are to be reached, as well as a careful evaluation indicating the U.S would be able to realize those goals with engagement. And while I do not see the proposed trip by Carter as overly significant, I struggle to comprehend what the endeavor aims to accomplish. Unless an American administration declares its intentions to open a dialogue with Hamas, any visits by former officials will not only fail to solve the problems which exist in the Palestinian territories, but would add legitimacy to a group before the world is able to adjust its policies to handle the effects of that. Let us remember that there are significant moral arguments to be made against Hamas, and that the policy of isolation and boycott was not entirely misguided in its intent but rather its calculation and execution. It is time for a new policy towards Hamas, but it should not start with Jimmy Carter.

Hezbollah’s secretary general and Khamenei protege Hassan Nasrallah delivered a speech via video link in Beirut this Monday, which has been described as his “most moderate” speech to date.  That’s probably in reference to his comments on Lebanon’s domestic troubles and promising to strive for a comprimise in the country’s battle of politcal wills.  His message to Israel though, not so moderate:

Nasrallah said the elimination of Israel was possible since following its withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000 and its “defeat” in the 2006 summer war, the “myth” of its “invincible” army had been shattered.

“Can Israel be eliminated? Yes and a thousand yeses, Israel can be eliminated,” he said.

“I want to remind you that an Israeli war is no longer a picnic. An Israeli war has become very costly because there is in Lebanon the strength, will and education of the resistance as well as the blood of the resistance’s martyrs,” he said, drawing cheers from the crowd, who gathered at a rebuilt complex destroyed during the Second Lebanon War.

Nasrallah added that UN-mediated negotiations with Israel for a prisoner swap were continuing.

“Although the Israelis have killed the pillar of the resistance, we did not halt the negotiations on a prisoner exchange,” he said, disclosing that meetings were recently held with UN mediators.

“We will not stop the negotiations … because we want to achieve one of the aspirations of martyr Imad Mughniyeh, that is, to see our prisoner brothers free among their parents and loved ones,” Nasrallah said.

The speech marked the end of a 40 day mourning period for terror-hero Imad Mugniyeh, whose martyrdom Hezbollah has embraced with passion.  He did seek to calm fears of a civil war as other leaders have regularly been doing:

In his speech on Monday, Nasrallah went out of his way to reiterate that his party was irrevocably committed to a political solution to the impasse. The sayyed has made this point before, but given the preponderance of armed might at his disposal, it is important for him to repeat this pledge at every opportunity - and especially when tensions are high. Given Nasrallah’s reputation as a man of his word, this has already served to soothe a widespread sense of foreboding that the failure of the upcoming Arab League summit would presage a new and more dangerous phase of the contest.

Note: To be posted at MidEastYouth, although I’m having some trouble logging in now. When I can get it up there I’ll keep an excerpt posted here.

Note 2: Fixed! You can read the whole post here.

“The world is watching what we do here.”
U.S Presidential hopeful Barrack Obama made the claim last Tuesday, after dropping 3 of 4 state primaries to his Democratic rival Hilary Clinton, that the world was watching what he and his supporters were doing. “The world is paying attention to how we conduct ourselves,” he said. “What will we they see? What will we tell them? What will we show them?”
One may find it hard to argue with Obama on this point, as his candidacy has certainly alerted the world to a different face of American politics. Yet “the world” is an attentive place, and people are inclined to follow a story as much for its audacity to hope as its’ audacity to bully. One such story, which has had a development of outlandish proportions, is about the yet to be released movie “Fitna”. As I imagine most readers will already know, Dutch MP Geert Wilders’ 10 minute film is set to aggravate an already scrutinized Muslim population, both in his native country and around the world.

His film’s message is rather simple and has been made numerous times by the man himself: Islam is fascist, and the Qur’an incites violence of deadly proportions. Wilders’ insistence on making these points central to his political career has not come without personal cost; the man has had to leave his country for a period of time, travel with constant security surveillance, and even work out of a prison cell at one point in his life. According to some he has taken up the mantle of Theo van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali in Dutch politics, although he’ll tell you he’s been making these statements long before anyone began listening to him.

I just read Obama’s “Terrorism Fact-sheet“, boldy titled “Obama’s Plan To Defeat Terrorism Worldwide”. Although that may be quite a strech of ambition, there was an aspect of the plan that impressed me, and given my last post on his candidacy I figured I’d highlight something positive about his policies.

The document is 8 pages, and presents a five point plan to defeat terrorism. Ending the war in Iraq and focusing on Afghanistan is one aspect of the plan which leaves many questions unanswered, containing phrases like “ramping up the diplomatic surge” as if there has been no attempt at diplomacy. The other points are securing the homeland, restoring our (America’s) values, capabilities in partnerships and drying up support for extremists. The last point mentioned interested me the most, which may have something to do with my studying international relations and communication. On combating the influence extremists have in these societies, the plan makes specific mention the “madrassas” that has made its presence felt in Western media stories on the Mid East and Pakistan/Afghanistan specifically. These religious schools, which often take advantage of large educational deficits existant in Mid East countries, would recieve competition from the United States under an Obama administration:

Offer an Alternative to Madrasas. Worldwide, an estimated 100 million children are not attending school, according to Human Rights Watch. This is a gap that extremists have stepped into with radical Muslim madrasas. Barack Obama would invest part of increased U.S. assistance to establishing a $2 billion Global Education Fund to eliminate the global education deficit and offer an alternative to extremist schools.

This is important, and while I haven’t checked whether similar points have been proposed by the other candidates, it implies that there is a certain understanding of the conflict which allows for long-term objectives to be set keeping in mind the future generations born into this conflict.

The other aspect of drying up support for extremists included an idea which I found very intuitive, the proposed creation of a new “America’s Voice Corps” trained in foreign languages and diplomacy to increase America’s presence in international media. Not only will this help achieve an aim of increased cultural communication but also re-shape America’s international image in a globalized world:

Launch a Public Diplomacy Effort. World opinion of the United States has fallensignificantly since September 11. According to the Pew Global Attitudes Survey, 80 percent of citizens of predominantly Muslim countries have solidly negative views of the United States. Barack Obama will launch a coordinated, multi-agency program of public diplomacy. He will open “America Houses” in cities across the Arab world. Modeled on the successful program the United States launched in Germany following World War II, America Houses would offer state-of-the-art English-language training programs, discussions, and a wide selection of current periodicals, newspapers, and literature. They would offer free Internet access and moderated programs that promote direct exchange with Americans through the use of modern informationtechnology. Obama also would launch a new “America’s Voice Corps” to rapidly recruit and train fluent speakers of local languages (Arabic, Bahasa Melayu, Bahasan, Farsi, Urdu, and Turkish) with public diplomacy skills, who can ensure our voice is heard in the mass media and in our efforts on the ground. Together these initiatives will show the Arab world the best America has to offer.

A few months ago I asked whether the Turkish army would defy the pleas of its allies and launch what all the papers are calling a “major incursion” into Northern Iraq, as part of their ongoing battle with PKK militants.  Turkey had periodically shelled areas of N. Iraq, but sentiments were still expressed that this would not escalate into a significant operation. Subsequent actions by the Turkish military however only grew in capacity, with air strikes climbing in frequency, giving U.S diplomats an ever augmenting political migraine.

Yesterday, thousands of Turkish troops were sent into the Kurdish dominated area in order to destroy the bases from which the militants are operating, according to Turkish television. U.S officials have disputed that figure, claiming the troops involved were in the hundreds. Either way, the situation looks to get increasingly hostile, and a Turkish military source suggested the operation would last up to 15 days.

Turkey’s military said the cross-border offensive, possibly the largest in a decade, would continue until they had stopped the threat from PKK rebels, who have been using northern Iraq as a base to stage attacks in Turkey.

It said in a statement 24 PKK rebels and five soldiers were killed in clashes in Iraq. It also said at least 20 rebels were killed in separate aerial attacks.

The United States urged Turkey, a key regional ally, to limit its offensive to precise PKK targets and to bring the operation to a swift conclusion. Iraq’s government called on Turkey to respect its sovereignty and to avoid any military action which would threaten security.

The European Union and the United Nations also urged restraint, fearing the offensive could jeopardize the most stable region in Iraq at a time when security is improving, and also rekindle tensions between Turks and ethnic Kurds.

The Turkish military said its troops had entered Iraq late on Thursday to destroy PKK camps and hunt rebels of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has been battling for decades to create a Kurdish homeland in southeast Turkey.

The operations inside Iraq will intensify tomorrow,” said a Turkish military source, who declined to be named. (link)

Dutch MP Geert Wilders, head of the PVV (Party for Freedom), has angered many self-interested religious leaders and foreign state officials with a movie critical of Islam, weeks before it has even been released. If you don’t know about this yet read up on it now, because the likelihood of an international wave of riots “protests”, a la last years’ cartoons, could very well be on the horizon:

“It is regrettable that European lawmakers and politicians use gratuitous methods to gain electoral votes by attacking the sacred values and religions of others,” foreign ministry spokesman Hossam Zaki said in a statement.

Dutch far-right deputy Geert Wilders has said he will be airing on television in the Netherlands in March a controversial anti-Islam film called “Fitna” (Ordeal), which accuses the Quran of inciting people to murder.

Such politicians, Zaki said in reference to Wilders, “focus their hatred on Islam” and plan to broadcast a film undermining Islamic symbols.

These acts “feed hatred against Muslims and encourage extremism and confrontation instead of opting for dialogue based on mutual respect,” Zaki said.

This month Egypt banned the sale of four European newspapers for reprinting the Prophet pictures and summoned the ambassador of Denmark.

Now, I don’t think this movie will be of any intellectual value. And I have similar sentiments towards the man behind the film, but at the end of the day it’s one movie that will broadcast on Dutch television. Why is the Egyptian foreign ministry speaking out about this, before the movie has even been aired?

Mr. Zaki is partially correct in his statement about actions which feed hatred against Muslims and encourage extremism, albeit not for the acts his statements were made against. The reaction to every single anti-Islamic or Middle Eastern sentiment expressed in Europe by Arab (and Persian) government officials, as if to imply that people of that continent should censor themselves so as to never offend Muslims, has played a large role in fanning the flames of the reactionary “protests” we see around the world. Hopefully the Dutch government will do the right thing once the movie is released and respond firmly in support of free speech to any of the patronizing formal protests which will undoubtedly be hurled their way.

So I took a break from blogging and there’s much news to get to. Many events have happened around the world in the past couple of month, and as I sit here and try to recall one of them, a single name keeps flashing through my head. Obama.

Not to cast any insignificance on the assassinations in Lebanon, Pakistan or Syria, or to belittle the ongoing crisis with Iran, but the first viable African American presidential candidate has most certainly made his presence felt in the media, rightly or wrongly. It is a presence that I’m dying to relieve myself of, and hopefully by spilling my thoughts out onto a blog post I’ll stop chanting “yes we can” in the mornings while I shower.

I’ve been following the U.S elections with increasing interest, and I liken the whole deal to a sporting event. From premature speculation about how the votes will be cast, to the minute by minute coverage of the Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries, there has been more than enough information to absorb.

It can probably be argued that many of us following the race know too much about it. Yet nothing quite beats the election coverage of American media outlets on the night of a primary. When did every cable news network turn into ESPN?

Not that it hasn’t been effective. I wake up every morning checking to see what has developed overnight. So with McCain as the presumptive Republican nominee, the race between a former first lady and a skilled but rhetorically shallow orator moves into sharper focus.

The candidates trash talk, insinuate falsehoods and at times lie openly about their opponents. You have pundits measuring how black, how feminine and how old the candidates are. All of this is ridiculous, to be sure, but I’m not an American and I’m entertained. I don’t care much for domestic policy disputes, since I’m not a U.S citizen and don’t live there. My initial interest in the race was to gauge which candidate would have the best policy towards countries in the Middle East and on the War on Terror, but I soon learnt that wasn’t very important. As I would find out, what is actually needed in the Mid East is more “diplomacy”. Gosh, how could we have been so stupid? Why did nobody think of that before?

Of course, people have thought of that before. The Bush administration has exhausted many avenues to pursue some sort of stability and peace in the troubled region, so the idea that a Democratic president would simply use diplomacy to settle foreign disputes is like revolutionizing the art of writing by reintroducing the pencil. It’s empty, meaningless rhetoric that shies away from addressing the nuances of a conflict in order to avoid controversy.

So what will Obama do on, say, that small issue of the Islamic Republic of Iran supporting and funding terrorist groups, bringing Lebanese political life to a halt, influencing militias in Iraq, threatening Israel, pursuing regional hegemony and apocalyptic weaponry? Simple, via his website:

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation.

In other words, he’ll try to lure away a tyrannical theocracy with money, in the hopes that they will stop killing people and running illegal militias. Just like all murderers are treated in the secular world. And if all that doesn’t work (it won’t), he’ll just continue doing what George Bush has done and isolate them. That’s not a plan, that’s naive bribery, with a fallback option of the status-quo.

Well, maybe Iran isn’t his strong suit. Pray tell, what will he do with Israel-Palestine?

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Obama will make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a key diplomatic priority. He will make a sustained push – working with Israelis and Palestinians – to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security.

That’s all there is on the website. Nothing on how he’ll achieve all this, nor any mention of the right of return or Hamas. In fairness to him, the other candidates are equally as vague.

My point with all of this is that he is just another politician, an obvious fact which those who have resisted the lure of his personality cult still grasp. Yet too many have jumped aboard the Obama bandwagon as of late, and his ability to inspire hope (which is as ridiculous as it sounds) has touched people Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Africa. And for a while, he had gotten me too. In fact, I still hope for a few things.

I hope that his campaign will not raise people’s expectations as to what can be accomplished in the Middle East, only to be met with a shot of realism which sends those high hopes falling.

I hope that when Hezbollah gets so influential in the Middle East, or when Hamas destroys his efforts at consolidating peace with a suicide attack or barrage of rockets, that he will not legitimize them in the eyes of the world by negotiating with them.

I hope that the war which Al-Qaeda waged against his country will not be viewed solely in the vacuum of Pakistan and Afghanistan, while the spread of a theocratic, celestially mandated ideology continues to spread across the world.

Most of all, I hope that in 4 years time Obama will not have to face the world and reluctantly admit that “No, he really can’t.”

“Be still when you have nothing to say; when genuine passion moves you, say what you’ve got to say, and say it hot.”

-D.H Lawrence

But try not to let it kill you..

TEHRAN, Feb 17, 2008 (AFP) — An Iranian ayatollah died suddenly of a heart attack during an impassioned speech lashing out at insults against the family of revolutionary founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the run-up to elections, the press reported on Sunday.

Ayatollah Mohammad Reza Tavassoli, a former head of Khomeini’s office, died while delivering the speech to Iran’s main arbitration body, the Expediency Council, of which he was a member, the Kargozaran daily reported.

He had been responding to unprecedented ultra-conservative attacks against Hassan Khomeini, Ayatollah Khomeini’s respected grandson, who had criticised mass disqualifications in the March election and military interference.

“He was attacking those people with fossilized minds who attack the family and the ideas of the Imam Khomeini when he had a cardiac arrest,” Mohammad Hashemi, brother of council head Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, told the paper.

He also quoted a letter from Khomeini from the early days of the revolution denouncing “reactionaries who attack the family and friends of the Imam Khomeini under the pretext of defending him.”

“Defending the Imam until the very last moment,” lauded the headline of Kargozaran next to a picture of Tavassoli, 77.

Next Page →

• Latests Posts

  • In House Stuff: Facelift
  • Hezballah Training Iraqi Militias Near Tehran
  • Noise Pollution
  • Egypt’s Local Elections Farce
  • Iranophobia?
  • Engaging The Muslim Brotherhood
  • Busy
  • Casualty of War
  • Engaging Hamas
  • “Dear Ayman…”

• Bookmark This Page

  

• Recommended Reads

  

  

  

  The "Beatles"

• Pages

  • About Me
  • Contact
  • Writings

• Meta

  • Login
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org