Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Israeli military to equip Jewish settlers with gas and grenades

By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem Wednesday, 31 August 2011

Army training for West Bank civilians as Palestinians push for UN recognition
Palestinian farmers have repeatedly clashed with Israeli settlers in the long-running land dispute. Now Israel is preparing for possible clashes on the West Bank

AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Palestinian farmers have repeatedly clashed with Israeli settlers in the long-running land dispute. Now Israel is preparing for possible clashes on the West Bank

The Israeli military is to train Jewish settlers in the West Bank and plans to equip them with tear gas and stun grenades to confront Palestinian demonstrators when their leaders press for UN recognition next month.

The enlistment of settlers, which has already opened with a training session for their local security officers, is part of the military's comprehensive "Operation Summer Seeds" for dealing with possible violence as the UN considers whether or not to recognise a Palestinian state.

According to a document leaked to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the defence establishment's working assumption – challenged by the moderate Palestinian leadership in Ramallah – is that the UN move will trigger "mass disorder". This includes, Israel contends, "marches toward main junctions, Israeli communities, and education centers; efforts at damaging symbols of [Israeli] government".

 

Related articles

The document also reportedly envisages the possibility of "more extreme cases like shooting from within the demonstrations or even terrorist incidents. In all the scenarios, there is readiness to deal with incidents near the fences and the borders of the State of Israel".

Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian National Authority, has insisted that demonstrations should be non-violent and while he has publicly backed the idea of "popular resistance" there have been unconfirmed suggestions that he and the Palestinian security forces will work to ensure their scale is limited.

The report in Haaretz says that the military is making it clear that demonstrations will be controlled and that it has sufficient forces to deal with every disturbance. It has, however, already decided in principle to equip settlement chief security officers with the means of dispersing demonstrations, although it acknowledges a shortage of equipment for firing such ammunition.

The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) confirmed yesterday it was "holding an ongoing professional dialogue with elements in the settlement leadership, with the routine security personnel, and is investing many resources in training forces, from a defensive standpoint and in readiness for possible scenarios". The military added that its central command had completed training most "first response teams" – the voluntary squads of settlers routinely assigned to deal with any attacks on them before troops arrive.

Israel's hard-line Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, was quoted earlier this month claiming the Palestinians were planning "unprecedented bloodshed" around the time of the UN vote. The claim is seen by Palestinian officials in Ramallah as an unjustified attempt to talk up the possibility of confrontation.

The military's own preparations have been drawn up in parallel with a concerted diplomatic initiative at persuading UN member states not to back the recognition bid, which Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki says will be presented on 20 September.

But according to a leaked Israeli foreign ministry document, Ron Prosor, Israel's ambassador to the UN, has already admitted it will be well nigh impossible to prevent the UN General Assembly from approving the Palestinian call. The Palestinians are currently expected to call for the same "non- member state" status within the UN as enjoyed by the Vatican.

At the same time efforts are being made by Ramallah to widen the international consensus in its favour, possibly by stressing that the borders of a state will only be agreed by negotiations.

The US, which strongly opposes the UN move, is pressing the EU and Russia, co-members of the international Middle East "Quartet" to come up with an early statement aimed to bring the two sides back to the negotiating table. Tony Blair, the Quartet's Middle East envoy who is due in the region next week, has been entrusted with trying to find an acceptable formula to break a deadlock partly created by Israel's insistence that the Palestinians recognise it as a "Jewish state".

But even if the US-backed initiative succeeds, it is unlikely to deter the Palestinians from pressing ahead with the General Assembly vote on the grounds that talks with the present Israeli government are unlikely to lead to an agreement, a view privately shared by some Western diplomats.

Israeli military to equip Jewish settlers with gas and grenades - Middle East, World - The Independent

Apartheid on Steroids

Stephen Robert August 12, 2011

I grew up in a small town in Massachusetts where my parents headed our local synagogue, Hadassah and the United Jewish Appeal. My first trip abroad after university, in 1962, included a week-long visit to Israel, where I was awed by its accomplishments, as well as by its vulnerability. After the Six-Day War in 1967, I basked in the courage and military prowess of my fellow Jews. The eloquence of foreign minister Abba Eban, defending his beleaguered country at the United Nations, still fills me with pride. In the years since, I’ve been a contributor and fundraiser for the UJA-Federation of New York, a governor of the American Jewish Committee, which is dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism, and a founding director of the Museum of Jewish Heritage—A Living Memorial to the Holocaust. I’ve made five additional visits to Israel since 1962, the last this summer as part of a humanitarian aid trip to East Jerusalem and the West Bank. As a Jew who has been an ardent supporter of Israel since its independence, it pains me to record what I saw there. But it is my love for Israel and for the Jewish people that drives me to speak out at this treacherous time.

 

We Recommend

American Jews Rethink Israel 

The Jewish push for peace is surging through the grassroots, but leaders and policy-makers are still turning a deaf ear.

Adam Horowitz and Philip Weiss

Israel: Boycott, Divest, Sanction

To end the bloody occupation, Israel must be the target of the same kind of global movement that finally ended apartheid in South Africa.

Naomi Klein

 

Related Content

Can Tahrir Square Come to Tel Aviv?

The Boycott Divestment Sanctions Movement

The American Century Is So Over

Palestinian Roads: Cementing Statehood, or Israeli Annexation?

Letter from Lebanon

What I witnessed in the West Bank—home to about 2.5 million Palestinians and 400,000 Israeli settlers—exceeded my worst expectations. While the world’s statesmen have dithered, Israel has created a system of apartheid on steroids, a horrifying prison with concrete walls as high as twenty-six feet, topped with body-ravaging coils of razor wire. Spaced along these walls are imposing guard towers that harbor bunkers from which trespassers can be shot by Israeli soldiers. From this physical segregation—one land for Israelis; another, unequal land for Palestinians—flows a torrent of misery, violence and human rights abuses. The West Bank suffers from acute shortages of water, housing, jobs and healthcare. Palestinian children are separated from their parents, denied access to hospitals and stoned and beaten by Jewish settlers. Human rights sanctioned by international law, including the right to health, the prohibition on transferring populations into occupied territories and equal treatment before the law are routinely violated.

David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, once said that Israel will be judged by how it treats the Arabs. This is a moral test Israel now resoundingly fails—a failure that threatens to undermine all of its accomplishments and, as is increasingly clear, its future.

* * *

The wall that Israel is building does not follow the post-1967 border. It makes major incursions into the West Bank, the largest about fourteen kilometers deep. Circuitous, twice times as long as the actual border, the wall snakes through the West Bank to envelop Jewish settlements and military bases, dividing Arab towns and families from each other. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) counts 505 checkpoints, roadblocks and other obstacles in the West Bank that prevent and impede movement.

This hulking, omnipresent physical constraint makes life for the Arab population a hellish nightmare. Travel outside many villages is allowed only with a permit from the Israeli army (IDF). Receiving a permit often takes months; sometimes permits don’t arrive at all (the IDF does not give explanations); when they do, they expire quickly. For security reasons, permits are usually denied men aged 15-30. Families are separated for years by these restrictions. A married couple—one partner from East Jerusalem, the other from Ramallah—may not be able to live together, and acquiring permits for visitation is an onerous process. Children—who account for almost half of the West Bank’s Palestinian population—are often separated from parents, indefinitely so.

Since many Palestinians are not allowed to travel to the nearest hospital without a permit, they are frequently cut off from medical treatment. Stories abound of people dying in ambulances, waiting to cross an Israeli checkpoint. Women in labor sometimes walk miles to a checkpoint, attempting to reach a hospital on the other side—it’s evidently quicker to cross on foot than in a vehicle. Worse yet, many of these mothers receive no pre- or postnatal care. Travel permits can expire before scheduled medical treatments are finished, and parents are often denied permission to accompany their young children to medical treatment centers.

Almost half of all specialty care patients in the West Bank are now referred to six East Jerusalem hospitals, which have become very difficult to reach. Even with a permit, many patients needing emergency care, including sick children, wait over two hours at checkpoints. Except for doctors, hospital staff must use one of three designated checkpoints and cross on foot, before taking public transportation to their hospital. These restrictions, which apply to medical students as well, cause chronic lateness, immense difficulty in recruiting staff and lower quality healthcare. As a result, in 2004, the International Court of Justice concluded that Israel’s permitting regime violates the right to health of the Palestinian population.

The occupation also makes agriculture an ordeal. Areas between the wall and the 1967 border (the green line) are designated seam areas; Arabs need special permits even to farm their land in these designated spaces. Permits have been declining, and the number of gates into the seam zones has been sharply reduced, placing farmers even further from their land. In response, many farmers have just given up on applying for permits at all.

Izbat Salman, a small Arab village in the Qalqiliya region, has much of its agricultural land behind the barrier wall in the seam zone. A 2003 UNDP report documenting the impact of the security wall there found that 70 percent of permit applications for visitors had been denied and that farmers must travel 14 kilometers to the nearest agricultural gate, which closes at 4 pm and on Israeli holidays. Farmers used to tend their fields after normal work hours, but that became impossible, and they experienced difficulty importing routine farm tools and equipment. According to the 2003 report, lemon and orange tree yields dropped by two-thirds since the barrier was erected. If security were the only issue, the wall would essentially track the current border. But the fact that the wall’s path places so much of the means of life—food production and access to medicine—outside the reach of Arabs suggests that it has been drawn to eviscerate the West Bank’s Arab society.

* * *

On the other side of the wall are the settlements, a misnomer really. In fact, many of them are small towns with modern housing, shopping centers and other amenities. Formally endorsed by Prime Minister Menachem Begin in 1977, settlements took off vigorously. Zoning restrictions were relaxed so that Israelis could build detached houses on large parcels of land, at low cost, while retaining their places of employment in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Restricted roads were built so that Israelis could avoid trips through Arab villages. Expansion continued even under the pro-peace governments of Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Barak. Ariel Sharon’s administration went further, allowing illegal outposts not authorized by the government. Most importantly, in all these years, the rational for settlements was the creation of a de facto situation on the ground making reunification of Judea and Samaria beyond difficult. Security became a justification after the second intifada, with its horrific violence and suicide bombings. This was clearly a factor, but the barrier also constituted an increased land grab by the Israelis. Today, although they constitute almost 100 percent of the non-settler population, Arabs have rights on only 35 percent of the land on the West Bank.

The West Bank settler population has grown each year from 140,000 in 1996 to about 400,000 today. By vastly building up the settlements, Israel ostensibly improved its position in any peace negotiation. Ironically, the settlements may now make any peace impossible because the settlers have amassed great political power. Netanyahu actually won fewer seats in the Knesset in the 2009 election than Tzipi Livni’s Kadima party. Only by forging a coalition of right-wing parties that included settlers and their supporters could Netanyahu form a government. For this victory, he has paid a price: any move that upsets the settlers could easily bring down Likud’s fragile majority. Thus, Netanyahu may be powerless to control the deluge in the West Bank, or to propose any viable plan for peace.

East Jerusalem, the presumed capitol of Palestine, has also been devastated by the barrier wall and Israeli settlements. In 2002, following tragic suicide bombings, the Israeli government approved construction of a wall to prevent suicide bombers from the West Bank from entering Israel—quite a reasonable objective. But why does the portion running through Jerusalem measure 142 kilometers, with only four kilometers running along the green line? Besides added security, the wall has redrawn the boundaries of the city. Over one third of East Jerusalem has been expropriated for construction of settlements, despite the illegality of transferring civilians to the occupied territory. Just 13 percent of East Jerusalem land is zoned for Palestinian construction, and permits are virtually unobtainable. Green areas and unplanned areas comprise another 50 percent of the land. De facto, the Palestinians have been expelled from East Jerusalem. Most were never citizens but permanent residents whose status was revocable and not transferable to spouses and children.

Hebron is the West Bank in miniature, and it is well worth examining. We toured Hebron with the Temporary International Presence in Hebron (TIPH), a civilian observer mission called for by both the Israelis and Palestinians. It monitors breaches of agreements and human rights, but its reports are confidential. The TIPH staff told us that they rarely get any reply to their reports, rendering the mission somewhat irrelevant. They do, however, have an acute sense of what is happening in Hebron.

Walking through Hebron, the largest town in the West Bank, we witnessed grievous and malicious violations of human rights. The main settlement sits above the old Arab market. Settlers throw huge rocks and garbage down on the market causing serious injury and disruption. In defense, the Arabs have erected a large net above their market to protect them. Now, the settlers throw Molotov cocktails that burn through the rope nets. We spoke with an Arab father whose 12-year-old son was recently blinded by a container of acid tossed from above. Children are stoned and beaten going to school, and Arab fields are torched when the settlers are angry, often at some policy of the Israeli government. If the government disappoints the settlers, the Palestinians pay the price. Many Palestinian shops have been shuttered by Israeli security, and 1,800 families have lost their income as a result. For the benefit of 800 Jews living in Hebron, life for 170,000 Palestinians living in the city center has come to a standstill. Most sickening of all, in a settlement called Kiryat Arba, the Jews have built a monument to Dr. Baruch Goldstein. In 1994, Goldstein stormed the Ibrahimi Mosque, killing twenty-nine praying Muslims. Small wonder that the TIPH believes that if the IDF were to exit Hebron, without question, the Jews would be massacred.

We asked the TIPH what the IDF does to stop crimes against the Arabs. They responded that the army views their mission as only protecting the settlers. Any action to contain these felons would be blocked by the government’s right wing. As we were hearing this appraisal, we saw about twenty IDF soldiers hassling a young Arab kid for walking on a street reserved only for Jews. For that he could be arrested, but blinding an Arab boy is not investigated.

How can Jews, who have been persecuted for centuries, tolerate this inhumanity? Where is their moral compass? How can this situation be acceptable to Judaism’s spiritual and political leaders? I don’t have that answer; except to say that Israel’s biggest enemy has become itself.

* * *

The Arab Spring should make it abundantly clear that the Jewish state is on the wrong side of history. When, exactly, the tipping point will come is not predictable. But when that point arrives, it will bring tremendous risks for Israel, and for almost half the Jews in the world who reside there. That Israel has the upper hand now portends nothing about the future. A small state of 7 million holding 4 million neighbors in prison, without opportunity, sufficient medical care, food, water and equal justice is not a sustainable situation. When, eventually, stasis gives way to unimaginable change, it will be too late to alter course. Israel, “right or wrong,” a position taken by many, will lead to a catastrophe. It represents a suspension of critical thought; characteristic of many radical ideologies. Friends of Israel would serve it better to know the true facts and then drive Israel toward a moral and practical solution.

What’s fair? There was a Kingdom of Israel near the time of Christ’s birth. Attacks by Romans, Syrians and others drove the Jews into a 2,000 year diasporic migration. During that long interval they were consistently persecuted, culminating in the Holocaust. Six million European Jews were exterminated in history’s worst genocide. Arab farmers eventually began living in the area that had been the Kingdom of Israel and have done so for hundreds of years. In the nineteenth century, Jews began to return as Zionist fervor and anti-Semitic persecution ignited immigration, later helped mightily by the Balfour declaration. The two groups fought constantly, for land, power and their perceived patrimony. Ending the British mandate over Palestine, the United Nations partitioned the land in 1947. Not acceding to the partition, the Arabs went to war. In the armistice, the Arabs were the losers, but they tried again in 1967 and 1973, losing even more territory.

Many Israelis and their leaders harbored the illusion that one day they could control all the land, certainly after their awesome victory in 1967. Pampered by the West, notably the United States, these unrealistic hopes were nourished. No doubt many Palestinians were equally unrealistic about what they could achieve. A big problem here is that there’s not much to divide. Like in a divorce where the marital estate is rather small, both spouses will likely be disappointed with their share. In this case, each side could blame their ancestors for not settling in a bigger and richer land.

With respect to fairness, the Israelis have done very well. Before the 1947 partition, the Jewish community owned only 6 percent of the land and comprised 35 percent of the population. The UN partition awarded them 55 percent of the land. The Palestinians, who had owned 94 percent of the land, were awarded 45 percent in the partition; Jerusalem was to be put under international supervision. After the 1948 war, however, the armistice line allocated Israel 78 percent of the land. Now many in the international community are advocating a return to those borders (with some land swaps) as a pillar of a peace agreement. Israel should be rejoicing under these terms, since they would receive 78 percent of the land available in 1947. An investment banker much of my adult life, I’d take this deal in a heartbeat.

Personally, I don’t believe the Netanyahu government is able to make peace and survive; the dependence on the radical right wing is too great. The issues in resettling about 150,000 settlers are intractable for the hard-line rightists. Some of Israel’s reservations seem hollow. Netanyahu said a divided Palestine government was an impossible partner in peace. Recently, when a unity government was proposed, he said he wouldn’t deal with Hamas.

The Hamas positions, in fact, resemble the PLO stance prior to the Oslo Accords. The Fatah/Hamas equation is difficult to gauge, but you can’t resolve the matter without talking and without preconditions. Like the PLO, Hamas appears violent and incorrigible. But Israel should remember the expression: “You don’t make peace with your friends.”

I believe the UN should recognize both a Palestinian state and a Jewish state, based largely on the pre-1967 borders. President Obama should lead this effort. This will legitimize both states, and put pressure on them to make peace. Economic levers should be applied, with both rewards and punishments. Settlements must be halted for talks to succeed, and steps should be taken to improve life in the occupied territories. Israel must regain the moral imperative, to disarm its enemies and secure its friends. Many believe there is an international campaign to delegitimize the Jewish state. At this point Israel is delegitimizing itself.

Stephen Robert August 12, 2011

Apartheid on Steroids | The Nation

The Moroccan 'Exception'

Laila Lalami August 24, 2011 | This article appeared in the September 12, 2011 edition of The Nation.

Long before the woefully inaccurate term “Arab Spring” had been coined, the king of Morocco, his advisers and their Western enablers began touting the idea that the country would be an exception to the movement. Morocco, they argued, was a stable and moderate nation, a beacon of liberalism in a region filled with extremism. Just three weeks after the fall of Tunisia’s Ben Ali, for instance, Khalid Naciri, the perpetually optimistic spokesperson for the Moroccan government, maintained that street protests were “a normal thing for Morocco,” because, he said, it has “allowed the practice of freedoms for many years now.” And only six days after the resignation of Egypt’s Mubarak, Naciri maintained that the protests that had been planned for February 20 were “quite ordinary and part of the democratic process that prevails in Morocco.”

 

Related Content

Arab Uprisings: What the February 20 Protests Tell Us About Morocco

Exile and the Kingdom

The Middle East's Working-Class Revolutions?

Homeless in Hollywood

Television

 

Also by The Author

Frankfurt Shootings: The Making of a Terrorist? (Media Coverage of the War on Terrorism, Race and Religion, World)

What the debate over terrorists seems to miss is the personal dimension: personal failures and personal grievances of the lone gunmen.

Laila Lalami

Arab Uprisings and American Intervention (Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, World Leaders)

The young people protesting in Arab capitals right now want a meaningful break with the status quo and, in many ways, that means a break from American support.

Laila Lalami

But that Sunday in February, tens of thousands of young Moroccans took to the streets in fifty-seven cities and towns throughout the kingdom. They answered the call of a loose coalition of young activists, who had been inspired by the Tunisian uprising and whose ideological leanings ranged from Marxism to Islamism. In some ways, the demands of the February 20 Movement, as the group came to be known, seemed bold: they wanted the entire government and Parliament dissolved. But compared with the demands of the young revolutionaries in Tunisia, theirs were tame: they did not ask that the man who runs the country—the king—step down. Instead, they wanted Morocco to become a parliamentary monarchy, where the king reigns but does not govern.

Their demands were so moderate for several reasons, chief among them the fact that ever since he ascended the throne in 1999, King Muhammad had successfully portrayed himself as markedly different from his notoriously brutal father, King Hassan. The young king had achieved this by distancing himself from the Makhzen. (The term “Makhzen” dates back at least to the eleventh century and once designated the warehouse where tax revenues, whether in kind or in currency, were stored. Over time, the term came to signify the government and the ruling elite.) In Morocco, much of the positive change that has happened over the past ten years—the family law reforms of 2004, say, or the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which investigated instances of abduction and police abuse—has come about as a result of the king’s initiative and under his direct supervision. In this way, while the king gets credit for bringing about progress, the Makhzen gets the blame for everything that ails the country, beginning with rampant corruption and crushing poverty. The February 20 Movement chose to focus its efforts on the Makhzen, a strategy that earned it much support among the country’s youth.

The best summary I have seen of the demands of the February 20 Movement comes from one of the slogans of that Sunday: “Khubz, Hurriya, Karaama, Insaniyya, which translates as “Bread, Liberty, Dignity, Humanity.” From my living room in Los Angeles, nearly 6,000 miles away, I watched young Moroccans chanting this slogan on a grainy YouTube video and was reminded of a poem by James Oppenheim, made famous during the 1912 textile strike in Lawrence, Massachusetts: “Our lives shall not be sweated from birth until life closes;/Hearts starve as well as bodies; give us bread, but give us roses.” The king and his advisers, I suspected, could no doubt figure out a way to deal with the bread; it was the roses that scared them.

Indeed, the king had already doubled economic subsidies on February 15, just five days before the protests. The subsidies helped lower (or at least stabilize) prices of cooking oil, flour and sugar. That should have taken care of the bread. As for the roses, the prevailing mantra seemed to be that they would never bloom in Morocco. “Morocco is not Tunisia,” Khalid Naciri told El País on February 26, sounding as though he was trying to reassure himself that the revolution could be averted.

If Morocco was not Tunisia, it still had much in common with it and with other North African and Middle Eastern dictatorships: widespread corruption, an appallingly low level of literacy, high rates of unemployment among university graduates, a judiciary that is subservient to the king and a police force that engages in beatings and torture. Little wonder, then, that the February 20 Movement sparked so many heated discussions in cafes, classrooms and online, and that protests took place the following Sunday, beginning a tradition that continues today.

I watched with increasing awe as battle lines were drawn between those who supported the goals of the February 20 Movement, if not its entire platform, and those who supported the status quo ante and referred to the reformists as a ragtag group of agents provocateurs funded by the West, Islamists or the Polisario Front. The reformists and royalists engaged in discussions that grew very heated, particularly online, where anonymity afforded people greater freedom to speak. It was unclear, however, where the majority of Moroccans—those who did not go online and did not attend demonstrations—stood.

But like his father before him, King Muhammad acted swiftly to co-opt the movement for change. On March 9, only seventeen days after the protests started, he announced that he would put forth constitutional reforms, based on seven principles: plurality of the Moroccan identity, consolidation of the rule of law, independence of the judiciary, separation of powers, a greater role for political parties, accountability for public officials and protection of human rights. This new Constitution, he said, was “a major step in the process of consolidating our model of democracy and development.” He appointed an ad hoc commission, headed by the jurist Abdeltif Mennouni, to begin drafting the text, which would be submitted to a referendum after three months.

The announcement took almost everyone by surprise, and forced them to deal with facts rather than ideas. Those who had been in the status quo group suddenly began praising the king for being a visionary who anticipated everything the youth wanted. But members of the February 20 Movement pointed out that the constitutional reform process was fundamentally undemocratic: Mennouni and his colleagues on the commission had been appointed by, and were solely answerable to, the king. In addition, the people most associated with corruption and abuse of power—such as the royal advisers Fouad Ali El Himma and Mounir Majidi—had not been mentioned at all in the speech.

Meanwhile, the king dispatched his ministers abroad to preach the gospel of the Moroccan “exception.” Assia Bensalah Alaoui, ambassador-at-large, told France24 that the climate of revolution in the region had merely offered an “opportunity” for change, but that the process of reform had been started more than eleven years earlier, when the king ascended the throne. Why the king waited eleven years to reform the Constitution, she did not explain. Edward Gabriel, a former US ambassador to Morocco and now a lobbyist for the regime, wrote columns in support of the king’s plans for The Hill, the Congressional newspaper.

And there were the usual encomiums from Western leaders, lawmakers and pundits. French President Nicolas Sarkozy praised the proposed reforms immediately, as did Senators Joe Lieberman and John McCain. All this happened at a time when, as Bernard-Henri Lévy so memorably put it, it was “very difficult to make blow jobs to dictators in the Arab world.” Thus, while most Western governments scrupulously refrained from praising their former allies, they made an exception for Morocco: it received a free pass, merely on the promise of reform.

At home, however, the king’s advisers and ministers sought to undermine the February 20 Movement systematically through a variety of strategies: physical threats against activists, accusations that they were drug addicts and alcoholics, hacking of social media accounts, press censorship, and salary raises for public sector employees and riot police.

In addition, demonstrations that took place after the king’s speech were often repressed, sometimes quite savagely, as happened on March 13 in Casablanca, when the police assaulted the headquarters of the Parti Socialiste Unifié, where protesters had sought refuge; and on May 22 in Rabat, when truncheon-wielding officers chased protesters through the streets of the capital; and on May 29, again in Casablanca, when police officers on motorcycles charged through crowds of protesters in the Sbata neighborhood. Seven people were killed during these weeks of protests: five in Al Hoceima, one in Sefrou and one in Safi. Students went on strike, followed by teachers and even journalists from the official press agency. By June, the number of protesters had grown to 60,000.

While the Mennouni commission was working on the draft Constitution, however, the revolutions in other parts of the Arab world turned bloody, particularly in Bahrain, Syria, Yemen and Libya. In Morocco these outbursts of violence created widespread fears of chaos, which were exacerbated when, on April 29, a bomb exploded in the Argana Café in Marrakesh, killing sixteen people. The Moroccan government said that the bomb was the work of Al Qaeda and swiftly arrested seven suspects.

The bomb in Marrakesh reminded people of the threat of Islamist violence and in some ways reinforced what has long been a prevailing narrative about Morocco, whether at home or abroad: the king represents stability, while the Islamists (and, by implication, those who associate with them) represent chaos. The fact that the February 20 Movement included activists from Justice and Charity, a banned Islamist party, increasingly became a point of contention. At a lecture I gave in Los Angeles, for example, a Moroccan attendee told me that she had supported the reformist movement until she found out that it included Islamists among its ranks.

In June, when the Mennouni commission finished its work, it presented the draft Constitution to political parties in a single, ten-hour session, which was closed to the public. The parties were not given a written copy—the text was read to them—and there were no reports that Mennouni had amended the text in any way as a result of the discussion. The king gave another televised speech, this time to outline the most significant changes in the new Constitution. For instance, it recognizes the language of the indigenous Amazigh people as an official language of Morocco. The prime minister, renamed the “head of government,” must be selected from the party that wins elections and can propose ministers for the cabinet. Those who hold public office must be held accountable.

But in reality the new Constitution largely preserves the king’s powers: he remains entirely in charge of the military and of religious affairs. He still chooses all provincial governors and the heads of all major national companies. And he can dissolve Parliament at will. Perhaps the best measure of how much, or how little, has changed is the fact that while the old Constitution referred to the king as “sacred,” the new one calls him “inviolable.” At the end of his speech, the king asked Moroccans to vote yes in a referendum to be held on July 1, just two weeks later.

Those two weeks seemed to take the entire country back to the heyday of King Hassan’s propaganda, when television anchors acted like town criers rather than journalists. The “yes” campaign received ample screen and radio coverage—as much as 89.6 percent of airtime, according to a report issued by the Haute Autorité de la Communication Audiovisuelle. Banners promoting a yes vote were hung at the entrances of medinas and at city intersections. Youths were paid to carry flags and pictures of the king. Ads were taken out by major companies saying that they and their employees intended to vote yes. Mosque preachers throughout the kingdom were ordered to read the same sermon, which advocated for a yes vote. Members of the Boutchichiya Sufi order marched in several major cities to show their support for the Constitution. When Jalal Makhfi, the Morocco correspondent for Dubai TV, dared to mention the “no” campaign in a report, Khalid Naciri had him and his editor sacked from that network.

On the evening of July 1 the government announced that the new Constitution had been approved by 98.5 percent of the voters, with turnout at 72 percent. Western leaders, including the French president, the representative of the European Union for foreign affairs and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, found much to admire in the referendum. Analysts were even more forthcoming. Ken Pollack of the Brookings Institution argued that the king had designed a “model of real reform” for the Middle East. Lee Smith of The Weekly Standard argued that Morocco was “on its way to democracy” and could even be said to be on the winning side of a “fundamental confrontation, between obscurantism and democracy.”

Few of these Western enablers seemed to question the one-sided campaign that had led to the vote or to wonder about the widespread reports of irregularities. At a mall community room in Los Angeles, where I voted, I was asked for my ID card, not for a consular registration card, as required by Moroccan law. My name was not checked against a voter list. No one asked for my signature. And although I pointed out to the official that my ID card had long ago expired, he said it did not matter and handed me a ballot.

The February 20 Movement, which had called for a boycott of the referendum, responded to its results with a mixture of derision and disbelief. The protesters resumed their street demonstrations on the first Sunday after the plebiscite, and they have continued ever since. Still, the wild hopes of that sunny Sunday in February seem to have been deferred. Back then, I remember, protesters had carried a banner that said, “We do not seek better conditions of servitude; we want freedom from servitude.” For the moment, better conditions of servitude are exactly what the king has offered Moroccans.

Laila Lalami

The Moroccan 'Exception' | The Nation

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Gadhafi family members in Algeria, ambassador says

By the CNN Wire Staff

August 30, 2011 -- Updated 0104 GMT (0904 HKT)

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • NEW: The 3 Gadhafi children in Algeria are named in a U.N. Security Council travel ban
  • Algeria allowed the Gadhafi relatives entry on humanitarian grounds, diplomat says
  • A rebel spokesman says the NTC wants them returned to Libya
  • A U.S. official pushes for "accountability" for Gadhafi kin with "blood on their hands"

(CNN) -- The wife of fugitive Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi, three of his children and some of his grandchildren arrived in Algeria on Monday morning, Algerian diplomats said.

Mourad Benmehidi, the Algerian ambassador to the United Nations, said he relayed the news to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon earlier Monday. Benmehidi said his country granted entrance to Gadhafi's wife, Safia, his daughter, Aisha, sons Hannibal and Mohamed and their children on "humanitarian grounds."

"We made sure the international community has been informed," said Benmehidi.

The ambassador said he did not know whether Moammar Gadhafi was expected to seek entry into Algeria and claimed none of the Gadhafis were subject to U.N. Security Council sanctions.

In fact, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1970, passed on February 26, includes the names of all three Gadhafi children who are now in Algeria as being subject to a "travel ban" because of their "closeness of association with (the) regime."

The U.N. ban requires "all member states" to prevent them and others listed from entering their territories, unless there is some special circumstance that the council agrees warrants an exception. The resolution also allows the nation -- in this case, Algeria -- to determine "on a case-by-case basis that such entry or transit is required to advance peace and stability (and) notifies the committee within 48 hours after making such a determination."

 

Gadhafi family members in Algeria

 

Meet the Gadhafi family

News on Monday of the Gadhafi relatives' departure from Libya came the same day that a senior rebel commander reported that Khamis Gadhafi, a son of the Libyan leader and military commander in his regime, had been killed Sunday night.

Mahdi al-Harati, the vice chairman of the rebels' Military Council, the military wing of the National Transitional Council, said Khamis Gadhafi died in a battle with rebel forces between the villages of Tarunah and Bani Walid in northwest Libya.

Khamis Gadhafi, who was a senior military commander under his father, was taken to a hospital where he died from his injuries, said al-Harati. He was then buried in the area by rebel forces, al-Harati said.

His father, Moammar Gadhafi, meanwhile, is still wanted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague on charges of war crimes. So, too, is Moammar's son Saif al-Islam Gadhafi and his brother-in-law and intelligence chief, Abdullah al-Sanussi.

But should any of those three get to Algeria, there is no guarantee they would face trial. Algeria is not a signatory of the Rome Treaty that established the International Criminal Court.

The longtime ruler's whereabouts have been a mystery since the rebels overran Tripoli last week. Rebel commanders said Gadhafi was not found in the network of tunnels beneath his Bab al-Aziziya compound, and reports that he had been holed up in an apartment block nearby or at a farm near Tripoli's airport didn't pan out.

The National Transitional Council, which is forming a provisional government in Tripoli since overrunning the city last week, has not yet confirmed the news about Gadhafi's family members, spokesman Mahmoud al-Shammam told CNN. But he said that if true, the NTC would demand the return of the family members. He promised they would receive a fair trial.

The rebels had previously speculated that Gadhafi could be trying to reach Algeria or Libya's southern neighbor Chad, both countries with which his government had close ties.

"Those are the only two neighboring countries that have been showing support for him," Guma El-Gamaty, an NTC official based in Britain, said last week.

In London, Britain's Foreign and Commonwealth Office said the fate of Gadhafi's relatives "is a matter for the NTC." In Washington, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters the United States has no indication Gadhafi has left Libya.

U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland added that what's important is that Gadhafi and his relatives, wherever they are, are held accountable.

"We want to see justice and accountability for Gadhafi and those members of his family with blood on their hands and those members of his regime with blood on their hands," Nuland said. "But it'll be a decision of the Libyan people, (as to) how that goes forward."

Algeria, which the CIA World Factbook says has a population of 35 million, repeatedly has been mentioned as a possible destination for Gadhafi and his family. Guma El-Gamaty, the Britain-based coordinator for Libya's National Transitional Council, said earlier this month that Algeria and Chad "are the only two neighboring countries that have been showing support for him."

Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted similarities between Libya under Gadhafi and Algeria, with a largely oil-driven economy and strong central government under President Abdelaziz Bouteflika "that is concerned with popular uprisings."

"My sense is that Algeria was supportive, in part, because they had worked out a modus vivendi (or, practical compromise) with Gadhafi and they feared the contagion of mass popular unrest in the region," Alterman said.

Yet while many nations in Africa had determined "it was easier to manage (Gadhafi) than to defeat him," especially when he shared some oil-derived wealth around the continent, Alterman said he finds it unlikely any nation will now risk international scorn by taking in the embattled leader himself -- or that Gadhafi would ever leave Libya.

Of Gadhafi's family members now in Algeria, Aisha Gadhafi was a good will ambassador for the U.N. Development Program and has kept a low profile during the six-month revolt against her father. She had been named to the position in 2009 to address HIV/AIDS and violence against women in Libya, but U.N. officials terminated her position as Gadhafi unleashed his military on anti-government protesters early in the conflict.

She is due to give birth in early September, sources close to her family told CNN.

Hannibal Gadhafi is a headline maker. He has reportedly paid millions of dollars for private parties featuring big-name entertainers including Beyonce, Mariah Carey and Usher. Several of the artists now say they have given the money back.

Rebels who picked through his seaside villa on Sunday also introduced CNN's Dan Rivers to his family's badly burned former nanny, who said she had been doused with boiling water by his wife, model Aline Skaf, when she refused to beat one of their crying toddlers.

The nanny, Shweyga Mullah, is covered with scars from the abuse, which was corroborated by another member of the household staff.

Hannibal was also accused of a string of violent incidents in Europe, including beating his staff and his wife. Charges were dropped in the case of his staff, and Skaf later said her broken nose was the result of an accident.

In another high-profile episode, Hannibal was stopped after driving his Ferrari 90 mph the wrong way on the Champs-Elysees in Paris. He invoked diplomatic immunity.

Mohamed Gadhafi, meanwhile, was one of three Gadhafi sons who had been reported captured as the rebels overran Tripoli last week. But the rebels said he had escaped the next day.

CNN's Greg Botelho, Richard Roth and Mohammed Tawfeeq contributed to this report.

Gadhafi family members in Algeria, ambassador says - CNN.com

Monday, August 29, 2011

Can you vacate your room, sir? Libya's new government needs it

By Patrick Cockburn in Tripoli

Monday, 29 August 2011

The Radisson Blu in Tripoli has not had running water since Friday

The Radisson Blu in Tripoli has not had running water since Friday

The new rulers of Libya, the Transitional National Council (TNC), have arrived in town. I know this because they just kicked me out of my painfully acquired hotel room when they took over the whole of the eighth floor of the Radisson Blu Hotel where I am staying.

My eviction did not elicit much sympathy from other journalists, many packed two or three to a room, when I explain I have been given another room and have it all to myself. The previous occupant, who had not done much clearing up before he departed, left behind an Omani military yearbook and some torn-up notebooks. He may have been one of the elusive group of Arab military officers who gave technical advice to the rebels, assuring their victory.

Even so, I wish the unknown officer had not taken the room's only towel which I am unlikely to get replaced. Luxury hotel the Radisson in Tripoli may once have been with its 350 rooms and 40 or so suites, which were once looked after by 400 staff, but this number is now down to about 20 harassed young men and two or three women. These heroically try to cope with the hordes of journalists pleading for a room that have descended on Tripoli since the city fell last week and they now have to deal with more peremptory instructions from the TNC as well.

The lack of a towel is less serious than it sounds because there has been no water in the hotel or most other places in Tripoli since last Friday. Pro-Gaddafi forces have seized the water wells 600km to the south in the Sahara and turned off the pumps. They are also said to have run out of fuel and cannot flee any further. As a result, there is no water for toilets or showers in the hotel and bottled drinking water is scarce and expensive. Journalists carry water from the swimming pool in waste paper bins to flush the toilets.

This is the first big test of the TNC. It seems to have learned from the experience of Baghdad in 2003 that security has to be maintained and looting prevented. Those members of the ruling council not at the Radisson are living at former regime bases in Souq al-Jumaa, a large district of crumbling old buildings famous for its revolutionary fervour. Locals say spies could never penetrate their networks of extended families and they were first to rise up in August.

There are checkpoints every couple of hundred yards in Souq al-Jumaa. The militiamen manning them are relaxed and, so far, surprisingly stoic about the humanitarian crisis engulfing the city. A militiaman who was nestling his Kalashnikov on his knee said that, in the district, "there is no water, electricity for five hours a day, little cooking gas and the price of food has gone up two or three times." Almost all shops are closed and when I tried to buy water at one of the few to open, they had run out. People are not desperate yet and water is being handed out in blue plastic jerry cans but it looks pitifully little in a city of two million.

An explanation that I am a foreign journalist is enough to get one waved through the checkpoints. Not surprisingly, the rebels feel an overwhelmingly sympathetic foreign press had a lot to do with their success. The influence of the internet, to which only 7 per cent of Libyans have access, in the uprising is exaggerated, but satellite television broadcasts from pro-rebel Al Jazeera and other Arabic stations had enormous influence at home and abroad.

This media sympathy might waver if Gaddafi is captured or killed. As long as he was in power many journalists felt that, whatever the failings of the rebels, at least they were better than the regime they were trying to overthrow. Even the mysterious murder of their own commander Abdel Fatah Younes, apparently with the connivance of other TNC leaders, did not dent the popularity of the rebels with the international media which continued to brush over their faults.

Just why so many Libyans hated Gaddafi and his ghastly family is made chillingly, and at times hilariously, clear, as their palaces are exposed to public view. His daughter Aisha seized a large plot of land in the Noflein district in Tripoli in 2005 and three years later moved into a compound with several luxury houses furnished with unsurpassable vulgarity and poor taste.

In one sitting room there is a sofa with the cushions resting on a gigantic golden bare-breasted mermaid who appears to be holding a dark-red feather duster but is probably meant to be a fan.

Mufat, a local man who had been put in charge of the complex, explained that when Aisha moved in "all her neighbours with windows facing her palace were told to close them and never open them again. If they did so they would be in big trouble." When her father visited her twice a year the whole district was closed down.

Tripoli has largely run out of petrol, but there is a traffic jam inside Gaddafi's own Bab al-Aziziya complex. Militiamen exuberantly fire their weapons into the air from the tops of buildings, but generally families, seeing how their ruler for 42 years lived, are quiet and intensely curious.

Some poorly dressed visitors to the palace were engaged in a little gentle looting of chairs, mattresses and blankets. Gaddafi may be gone but it will be some time before people in Tripoli begin to blame their new rulers for their troubles.

Can you vacate your room, sir? Libya's new government needs it - Africa, World - The Independent

An Enigma in Power, Qaddafi is Elusive at Large

By ANTHONY SHADID

Published: August 28, 2011

TRIPOLI, Libya — It was perhaps only fitting that Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi would be as unpredictable on the lam as he was in power for 42 eccentric years.

Tyler Hicks/The New York Times

Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi with his wife, Safia Farkash, in a family photograph. The photos were found in his compound in Tripoli. More Photos »

Related
Related in Opinion
Tyler Hicks/The New York Times

From left, one of Col. Qaddafi's daughters, Eisha, his wife, Safia Farkash, and Saif al-Islam, in a photograph from Col. Qaddafi's looted home. More Photos »

In Green Square, now renamed Martyrs’ Square, youths cleaning the asphalt predicted he was under their feet. In Bab al-Aziziya, once Colonel Qaddafi’s bastion of power here, residents carting away his possessions suggested neighboring Algeria, his hometown of Surt or some faraway locale in the desert, an environment in which Colonel Qaddafi long claimed to feel most at home. Fighters firing volley after celebratory volley just shrugged.

“It’s the biggest question — where is Qaddafi — and nobody knows,” said Suleiman Abu Milyana, a fighter from the Nafusah Mountains in the west. “He has a particular mind and many personalities. If he had one, you could guess, but he has three or four, so no one can know.”

As his capital fell last week, Colonel Qaddafi and his family evaporated (though two of his sons may, or may not, have been briefly held). Even the adopted daughter he claimed was killed in an American air strike in 1986 — wrongly, it now seems — disappeared from the city of two million, leaving behind her empty office at a Tripoli hospital. Since then, he has released a few brief audio messages, with vintage insults four decades in the making. In one, he called on countrymen to cleanse his capital of rats, traitors and infidels. “Let the masses crawl from every place toward Tripoli,” he declared in the other.

“Forward! Forward! Forward!” he cried.

On Sunday, Colonel Qaddafi’s loyalists even offered to negotiate, a proposal that Mahmoud Shammam, the information minister in the transitional government, dismissed as “a daydream.”

“We are going to arrest them very soon,” he said, though that has become the refrain of bad predictions the past week as the rebels consolidate their control here.

“We really don’t know where he is right now,” acknowledged one senior American counterterrorism official, speaking on the condition of anonymity in Washington.

British and French special operations troops, aided by American reconnaissance imagery and intercepts, as well as operatives from the Central Intelligence Agency, have helped rebels search for Colonel Qaddafi throughout the capital, American officials say.

“We have no reason to believe Qaddafi has left Tripoli,” one American military officer said, noting that the Libyan leader likely had a series of tunnels and safe houses, supported by a network of trusted aides, that he could use to evade his pursuers. But other American officials said he could have slipped out of the capital to towns in the east, and the speculation — in Tripoli and elsewhere — is that he somehow made his way to Algeria, the only neighboring country that has yet to recognize or support the rebel leadership.

In reality, the rebel leadership seems more overwhelmed with the task at hand, bringing back running water, electricity and medical supplies to the capital, as well as doing something about the hundreds of fighters roaming streets with the prestige that a brand-new assault rifle brings. While they acknowledge his capture might end resistance in places like Surt, on the coast, and Sabha, to the south, they say they have already accomplished the greatest challenge: ending the reign of the Arab world’s longest-ruling leader. “I don’t care about him, he’s gone,” said Mazigh Buzakhar, a 29-year-old activist. “He’s been gone since the 17th of February,” he said, citing the date the revolt began. “He lost his legitimacy and he has nothing left. He means nothing to Libya or Libyans.”

But in less guarded moments, some acknowledge the shadow Colonel Qaddafi can still cast in a country where two-thirds of Libyans have known no other leader.

“It’s the same effect as when you’re trying to get a comfortable night of sleep and there’s an annoying mosquito buzzing around the room,” said Aref Nayed, who heads the rebel leadership’s Stabilization Committee. “I’m absolutely convinced that he’s finished but it is a nuisance.”

Tyler Hicks/The New York Times

Colonel Qaddafi with unidentified family members. More Photos »

The comparisons with Saddam Hussein are inescapable. Like Colonel Qaddafi, the Iraqi dictator fled with his sons as his capital fell in 2003. He evaded capture for seven months, moving around a series of safe houses and subterranean hide-outs. American troops carried out more than a dozen raids trying to capture him before a close associate finally gave him up.

“Qaddafi’s like a mouse scurrying along the ground,” said Mohammed Zarzah, a 25-year-old fighter celebrating at Bab al-Aziziya, where, every day since the compound was overrun Thursday, crowds of the curious and the jubilant have gathered at a shrine Colonel Qaddafi built over the target of the 1986 American airstrike. “He called us a rat, and now it turns out that he’s the rat.”

Through the morning on Sunday, people carted away souvenirs from the compound, including a Hello Kitty blanket and plates emblazoned with scenes of an older Tripoli. Strewn about were portraits of Colonel Qaddafi — with Fidel Castro; Yasir Arafat; Nelson Mandela; and Hosni Mubarak, the jailed former president of Egypt. One picture captured his son Seif al-Arab, after his circumcision. Another showed him playing soccer with a grandson. “You should burn each one of those!” one man shouted.

Some visitors peered through doors charred by airstrikes, as if breaching the forbidden.

“If you ask me, he’s staying right here, in our midst,” said Zuheir al-Arabi, a former employee at Libya’s state television. “He can’t live somewhere tight, he can’t live underground. He has to live somewhere big — and here’s the evidence for that right here.”

His hands black, he rummaged through Colonel Qaddafi’s belongings, landing on a jar of dried herbs that he insisted the Libyan leader has relied on to cast magic spells. “He still has a surprise for us,” Mr. Arabi said.

A spokesman for the rebel military said Sunday that one of Colonel Qaddafi’s sons, Khamis, the head of a feared brigade, may have been killed at a roadblock.

“One thing I know is they’re definitely not together,” said Ahmed Gharib, who joined friends sweeping Martyrs’ Square, as fighters and residents careened around it in cars, honking horns. “Everyone is trying to save himself on his own, just like before — in Tripoli, Surt and Sabha.” He tapped the ground with his broom. “And one underground.”

“Long live a free Libya,” graffiti read along a wall. A man stood on the curb. “Forward! Forward! Forward!” he cried, riffing on Colonel Qaddafi’s trademark chant. Mr. Gharib watched the scene unfold, the offered a line heard often these days. “Every tyrant has his end,” he said.

Rod Nordland contributed reporting from Benghazi, Libya, and Mark Mazzetti from Washington.

An Enigma in Power, Qaddafi is Elusive at Large - NYTimes.com

Sunday, August 28, 2011

The Imprint of Iron Fists Fades Slowly

By CHRYSTIA FREELAND | REUTERS

Published: August 25, 2011

NEW YORK — “When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground.” That’s a line from “Game of Thrones,” the new HBO television series that is conquering American popular culture.

But it could just as easily refer to the no-holds-barred battles we are watching in Libya and Syria. What is hardest to grasp is how these regimes are both strong and brittle. Their rulers are ruthless dictators prepared to do whatever it takes to stay in power — and for decades that can work. Until, suddenly, it does not.

We are not very good at understanding the win-or-die dynamic of these sorts of political systems: Not so long ago, everyone from the U.S. State Department, to Harvard, to the London School of Economics, to Vogue magazine, to blue-chip Wall Street money managers treated the Assads and the Qaddafis like rulers capable of gradual liberalization and even democratization.

Part of the problem is that the Cold War habit of mind, with its division of the world into two rival, ideologically cohesive camps, dies hard. Its legacy today is our tendency to look for a new, black-and-white division, this time into democracies and dictatorships. (Remember the axis of evil?) But modern dictatorships come in many different varieties. The ones that are collapsing in the Middle East are examples of what political scientists call “sultanistic” dictatorships.

According to Jack A. Goldstone, a professor at the School of Public Policy at George Mason University in Virginia, the defining characteristic of a sultanistic regime is that it has no purpose apart from maintaining the leader’s personal authority. “A sultanistic regime is one in which the leader of a country has managed to gain control of all the levers of state power,” Mr. Goldstone said. “No one has any secure rights, and the leader rules with absolute authority.”

Richard Snyder, a professor of political science at Brown University in Rhode Island, said sultanistic regimes, which he prefers to call personalistic dictatorships or neo-patrimonial dictatorships, are all about the guy on top. “People get goodies for being close to the ruler. That’s the essence of it,” he told me.

Sultans establish their power by making sure no one else has any — or at least any that is independent of the sultan himself. That means that sultans intentionally hollow out their own government institutions.

“Autocrats in these cases consciously weaken the state, both by filling it with cronies picked more for loyalty than competence and by starving those parts of it not controlled by close allies,” said Lucan Way, a professor of political science at the University of Toronto. “Thus, in Libya, Muammar Qaddafi severely under-funded the military while ensuring that his sons commanded the most highly trained and best-equipped militias.”

Successful sultans, Mr. Goldstone said, also work to make and to keep their societies divided: “The ideal arrangement is to be supported by many elite groups, none of which are inclined to support one another.”

All of which makes sultanistic regimes particularly awful places to live. The bitter and corrosive sense of personal humiliation that inspired so many participants in the Arab Spring was not accidental — it is central to how sultanism works. “Under a sultanistic regime, because nobody has any rights they all feel humiliated and subject to the whims of the ruler,” Mr. Goldstone said.

But modern-day sultans have an Achilles’ heel. The techniques they use to establish and maintain power make them very, very strong when they are in charge — Mr. Goldstone said that sultans have more personal authority than medieval monarchs did — but they also make their regimes extremely brittle. If a revolution starts, it can succeed swiftly.

“The regime’s supporters are not motivated by any real animating or guiding philosophy,” Mr. Snyder said. “It is not like fundamentalist Islam or communism.”

“The armed forces need to decide: How many of our own people do we need to shoot to keep the boss in power,” Mr. Goldstone said. “If the boss looks strong, the whole regime looks strong. But if the boss starts to look weak, it crumples fairly quickly.”

That is the good news. The bad news is that the brittleness of sultanistic regimes is a mixed blessing — it helps the revolutionaries when they are in the streets, but it complicates the task of nation-building after they win.

A smart dictator of a sultanistic regime eviscerates his country’s institutions; rules by personal fiat, not by law; and creates a divided society in which sycophancy and corruption are the paths to prosperity. Citizens of such societies lack even a shared set of values — they live in what Mr. Snyder called “a belief vacuum.”

That is why it will be neither a failure nor a betrayal if the best the Libyan rebels manage to establish is a weak democracy that is unstable, divided and inefficient. Effective democracies take generations to build. They are the opposite of sultanistic regimes: hard to establish, internally complex and querulous, but enduring.

You do not need a degree in political science to figure that out. Daenerys, one of the heroines of the George Martin fantasy series on which HBO’s TV serial is based, discovers that overthrowing the cruel, slave-owning oligarchies that run a troika of city-states is surprisingly easy. But she despairs when the regimes that replace them turn out to be little better.

It is easy to cheer the fall of the sultanistic dictatorships. Now is the moment to remember to be patient when their humiliated and divided people find it is a struggle to build a government that is not quite so bad.

Chrystia Freeland is global editor at large at Reuters

The Imprint of Iron Fists Fades Slowly - NYTimes.com

Saturday, August 27, 2011

US envoy 'threatens to slash aid to PA

US consul in Jerusalem says Palestinian Authority could lose funding after statehood vote at United Nations.

Last Modified: 26 Aug 2011 17:40

Saeb Erekat met on Friday with Daniel Rubinstein, the US consul general in Jerusalem [EPA]

A senior American diplomat reportedly warned on Friday that the United States would cut aid to the Palestinian Authority if it asks the United Nations to recognise a Palestinian state next month.

Daniel Rubinstein, the US consul general in Jerusalem, said the United States would veto any resolution in the Security Council. He threatened "punitive measures" if the PA moves forward with the statehood bid at the General Assembly.

Rubinstein reportedly made those threats during a meeting with Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian Authority's chief negotiator, according to a statement issued by Erekat's office.

"In case the Palestinian Authority seeks to upgrade its position at the UN through the General Assembly, the US Congress will take punitive measures against it, including a cut in US aid," Rubinstein said, according to the statement.

But a US State Department spokesman said in an e-mail that Erekat's statement "is not an accurate portrayal of the US position," and denied that Rubinstein made those comments.

Several members of Congress - Democrats and Republicans alike - have already threatened to slash aid for the PA if it pursues the statehood vote.

An important lifeline

The US gave roughly $470m to the Palestinian Authority last year, more than 10 per cent of the authority's $3.7bn annual budget. Foreign donations make up roughly one-quarter of the PA's budget; the European Union is the other main contributor.

Erekat also met on Friday with Christian Burger, the European Union’s envoy to the PA. The EU has not yet announced a position on the statehood bid.

The PA is expected to ask the UN General Assembly next month for "enhanced observer" status, which would give it standing on par with the Vatican.

The Security Council would have to approve full statehood, and a US veto would doom that measure.

Palestinian officials argue that they have no choice but to seek a UN vote, because Israel's ongoing construction of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank is eroding the prospects for two states.

Israel says both sides should resolve a few intractable issues - including borders and refugees - before Palestine seeks recognition. Talks between Israel and the PA collapsed nearly a year ago over Israel's refusal to halt settlement growth.

US envoy 'threatens to slash aid to PA' - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

US to oppose Palestinian UN bid

US envoy terms Palestine's approaching of UN as "unilateral action", despite backing of over 120 countries.

Last Modified: 27 Jul 2011 04:03

The US is to oppose Palestine's application to the UN for full membership status when the body's General Assembly convenes in September.

Rosemary DiCarlo, the US deputy ambassador to the UN, said that the US would not support "unilateral action" by the Palestinians at the UN.

DiCarlo was speaking at the final, regular UN Security Council discussion about the Israeli-Palestinian situation.

"Let there be no doubt: symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September will not create an independent Palestinian state," DiCarlo said.

"The United States will not support unilateral campaigns at the United Nations in September or any other time."

DiCarlo said the US is pressing for a resumption of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, insists on a negotiated settlement, and will oppose any unilateral action by the Palestinians at the UN.

The US is among five veto-power members of the Security Council. It only considers UN admissions to the General Assembly from recommendations by its 15-member council.

Two-state solution

In response to DiCarlo's statement, Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian UN observer, said that with more than 120 countries already recognising an independent Palestinian state, any UN action, whether at the Security Council or the General Assembly, would not be unilateral.

"On the contrary, it is multilateral, and the consecration of the two-state solution in bold resolutions, including recognition of the state of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital, on the bases of the pre-1967 borders and its admission as a full member of the organisation will help to make the two-state solution more inevitable," he said.

Western diplomats say the Palestinians have not decided whether to seek membership in the UN as a sovereign state or to press for a non-binding resolution recognising a Palestinian state without UN membership.

Mansour said "This is the time for Palestine's independence."

He said the Palestinians are ready to resume negotiations with the pre-1967 war borders as the foundation, but stressed "we cannot keep waiting for Israel to negotiate in good faith."

In line with the US sentiment, Ron Prosor, Israel's UN ambassador said "it is clear that the Palestinians are not united and are far from united for peace".

"Now is the time for the international community to tell the Palestinian leadership what it refuses to tell its own people, there are no shortcuts to statehood," he told the 15-nation council. "You cannot bypass the only path to peace."

"The Palestinians will have to make compromises and make hard choices," Prosor said. "They will have to get off the bandwagon of unilateralism and back to the hard work of direct peacemaking."

End to occupation

The PA is debating whether to petition the UN General Assembly for full recognition as a state, or for "enhanced observer" status, which would give it standing on par with the Vatican. Either way, the resolution would demand that Israel return to its pre-1967 borders.

Palestinian officials argue that they have no choice but to seek a UN vote, because Israel's ongoing construction of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank is eroding the prospects for two states.

Israel says both sides should resolve a few intractable issues - including borders and refugees - before Palestine seeks recognition. Talks between Israel and the PA collapsed nearly a year ago over Israel's refusal to halt settlement growth.

The United States cannot veto the UN resolution, because its veto only applies to Security Council votes, but the Obama administration has said it opposes the measure. Israel is actively lobbying several countries for "no" votes, as well.

Source: Al Jazeera and agencies

US to oppose Palestinian UN bid - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

Why one-fifth of US representatives went to Israel this summer

The record delegation of 81 congressmen, whose expenses were paid by an AIPAC affiliate, is seen as a circling of the wagons just weeks ahead of a UN vote on Palestinian statehood.

 

US House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, (D-MD) speaks at a press conference in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, on August 10, 2011. Debbie Hill/UPI/Newscom/File

By Joshua Mitnick, Correspondent / August 25, 2011

Tel Aviv

Back in May, Congress lavished 29 standing ovations on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a resounding demonstration of solidarity just days after a very public clash between the Israeli leader and President Obama.

Related stories

There’s been a follow-up act this month: a record delegation of 81 US representatives to Israel. The virtual airlift of more than a fifth of the House, funded by affiliates of America's powerful Israeli lobby, is seen as a circling of the wagons just weeks before an expected Palestinian statehood vote at the United Nations.

With Israel facing the potential of increased isolation from the UN move, the congressional show of force sends a clear message to the White House to stand by the Jewish state. It also sends a warning to Palestinian officials that Congress will cut off hundreds of millions in annual aid if they follow through with plans for a unilateral declaration of statehood backed by the UN, analysts say.

RECOMMENDED: Why such a warm reception for Benjamin Netanyahu at US Congress?

"It's like coming here on the eve of the [1967] Six-Day War. Israel is isolated and under diplomatic threat," says Akiva Eldar, a diplomatic columnist for the liberal Haaretz daily newspaper. "[Netanyahu] wants to send a clear message: 'Don’t mess around with me. Congress is with me on both sides of the aisle.' "

Making a case for $3 billion in aid during austere times

The visit is funded as an educational trip by the American Israel Education Foundation – a group affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

While such visits are routine, the unusual size of this year's delegation reflects several factors ranging from the UN vote and rising criticism of White House policy toward Israel, to the bumper crop of freshman representatives who don't have to spend the summer campaigning for reelection. AIPAC wants to use the visit to make the case to newcomers for continued US foreign aid of about $3 billion at a time of fiscal austerity.

"The question isn’t so much going away with a different attitude, it's going away with more information," says David Kreizelman, who heads AIPAC’s office in Israel. "They have to go back to their constituents who are saying, 'We want [government help] and you are voting to give money to Israel.' "

AIPAC has arranged meetings with Israeli politicians ranging from Mr. Netanyahu to opposition leader Tzipi Livni to parliament members who are die-hard supporters of the Jewish settlers in the West Bank. Like many foreign dignitaries, representatives visit the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial, are hosted at residence of President Shimon Peres, and are bused to southern Israeli towns that have been hit by rockets launched from the Gaza Strip.

US lawmakers threaten to withhold aid to Palestinians

They also paid visits to Palestinian leaders in Ramallah to hear their perspective. But during those conversations, US congressmen have been making it clear that the Palestinian Authority is jeopardizing donor support from the US with its UN statehood initiative.

"We’ve given a clear communication to Prime Minister [Salam] Fayyed that we thought that it’s a step back ... and is not helpful," says Rep. Tom Price, a fourth-term Republican from Atlanta who spoke by phone en route from the Sea of Galilee to the Israeli-Lebanon border. "There is great sentiment for not continuing the aid, because the vote is so destructive to formulating a bilateral agreement on a peace."

Palestinian leaders say the congressional support of Israel reflects a bias that has hurt US efforts to mediate the peace process. They were outraged in May by the standing ovations Netanyahu received. Despite that the congressmen got a hearing with top leaders.

"Successive American congresses have always been supportive of Israel. This is a fact of life that we are trying to deal with," says Ghassan Khatib, a spokesman for the Palestinian government. "Palestinians are always motivated to explain their views to visiting delegations, especially American ones."

The Glenn Beck factor

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R) of Virginia and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D) of Maryland have led two separate waves of representatives, largely split along party lines. A large portion of the participants were freshman Republicans who have never visited the region.

The number of visiting lawmakers is at least double that of similar contingents in the 1990s. Over the years, Israel has become an increasingly frequent stop on the campaign trail for presidential candidates and politicians with hopes of gaining nationwide prominence.

In the special election to replace Rep. Anthony Weiner (D) of New York, Republican candidate Bob Turner has turned pro-Israel credentials into a campaign issue. Republican house members are also paying attention to former Fox News anchor Glenn Beck, who spearheaded a pro-Israel solidarity rally of thousands of US tourists at the foot of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount on Wednesday.

"They can’t help but notice that this is on Glenn Beck’s radar," says Lenny Ben David, a former head of the AIPAC office in Jerusalem and a former Israeli diplomat. The size of the delegation "may reflect that it’s a campaign issue. The race to replace Anthony Weiner is of interest in both parties."

Shmuel Rosner, a fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute, says congressional support is especially crucial given rocky relations between the Netanyahu and Obama governments. "Since this current Israeli administration and American administration are suspicious of one another, and has a lot of tension, Congress is the institution on which Israel will rely."

 

Why one-fifth of US representatives went to Israel this summer - CSMonitor.com

Palestine gets ready for historic UN vote

Ramallah is buzzing as Palestinian leaders launch push for statehood at the United Nations.

Daoud Kuttab Last Modified: 05 Aug 2011 18:19

Palestinian diplomacy has been frenetic ahead of the statehood bid [EPA]

If anyone outside occupied Palestine had doubts that the Palestinian Authority was hesitant about going to the UN to request the recognition of Palestine as a full member, a trip to Ramallah would quickly put an end to this scepticism.

Ramallah's hotels are full of members of the Palestine Central Council - the second-highest representative body in Palestinian politics after the Palestine National Council. PNC Speaker Salim Zannoun has held meetings in Amman, Hebron, Nablus and Ramallah in preparation for a crucial central council meeting in Ramallah this week. The leading independent daily published in Ramallah, Al Ayyam, boasts a colourful map of the world with 122 flags representing world countries that have indicated that they will vote for Palestine to become a full member.
Robert H Serry, UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, has been quoted in the local press as saying in New York that the Palestinians are ready to take responsibility for their state.
Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad was dispatched to Cairo to convince an emergency meeting of the Arab League that they must step up and fulfil commitments to the Palestinian Authority. Ever since Mahmoud Abbas and Khaled Mashaal signed the reconciliation deal, Israel has illegally withheld taxes and customs it collects on behalf of the PA - which usually cover 70 per cent of the authority's running expenses. Salaries were paid at 50 per cent last month and are in doubt this month.

Keeping options open

Furthermore, threats from the US congress to cut off aid to the PA are taken seriously here, and therefore Palestinian leaders are making sure that they can get alternative sources of income. Palestinians want to make sure that Israel and the US are not going to financially blackmail them into taking positions that are contrary to Palestinian aspirations.
The readiness of the Palestinian leadership to go to New York, however, doesn't reflect unanimity amongst Palestinians. It is true that Hamas has publicly said that they are not opposed to the idea. Aziz Dweik, the Hamas-supported speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, who politely declined the invitation to attend the PCC sessions in Ramallah, wrote to Zannoun that, while full participation would need to wait until the reform of the PLO as agreed on in the reconciliation agreement, he gave his blessing to the UN trip. And while Fayyad is trying to raise money for PA salaries, he has made it clear that he is not totally in favour of the UN bid. A close reading of Fayyad's plan for independence focuses on the idea of creating a de facto state at the present rather than go for a vote at the UN.
There are also other small cracks in an almost wall-to-wall support for the UN move from different directions. Talking to Palestinians in the street, one gets the feeling that there is concern that this move might not produce any concrete change, but may potentially cause a lot of damage. A middle-class Hebron white-collar worker noted that in the past few years a huge number of Palestinian civil servants borrowed from local banks to buy homes and cars based on their PA salaries, and are now scrambling to pay their debts without a consistent monthly salary.
Hani Masri, an independent writer who was active with the independent forum set up by businessman Munib Masri, argued in an Al Ayyam op-ed against the idea that Palestinians should go back to negotiations after the UN vote. The UN vote is not a one-off idea; it must be the beginning of a process that will also be parallelled with serious hard work on the ground. Going back to negotiations after the UN vote will not improve our negotiating position, he said.

Even PLO spokesman Yasser Abed Rabbo sounded a tiny bit hesitant. Speaking after a meeting of the PLO executive committee, he said that, while there was "no precedent that pushes us to go to the UN at any certain time, that doesn't mean that we are hesitant about going to New York".
It is also not clear what the Palestinian diplomatic tactic will be in New York. Will the Palestinians risk a US veto by going to the UN Security Council and asking for full membership, or will they skip the council and go directly to the General Assembly requesting recognition as a state with merely observer (rather than full) membership?
Whatever some small voices say, the Palestinian political machine is on high alert. All 90 Palestinian ambassadors around the world have been told to cancel all vacations and to work around-the-clock in the coming two months. They met in Istanbul last week with President Mahmoud Abbas and were given the political directions for their mission. As far as Ramallah is concerned, Abbas will ask the PCC to officially approve his recommendation that, due to the failure of the attempts to get Israel to agree on the basis of the talks that include agreeing to a settlement freeze, and the failure of the Quartet to produce a mutually acceptable plan, the Palestinians' only non-violent option is to go to the highest international body, the UN, and seek their help in ending the 44-year Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands.

Daoud Kuttab is a Palestinian journalist and former Ferris Professor of Journalism at Princeton University.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily represent Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

Source: Al Jazeera

Palestine gets ready for historic UN vote - Opinion - Al Jazeera English