Ayman az-Zawahiri al-Musri, al Qaeda’s number two man, is featured in a twenty minute video released today. It was released by as-Sahab, the terrorist group’s media arm. The terrorist is seen speaking before a backdrop of still pictures of him and the recent Annapolis talks.
He attacks those that attended the conference in Maryland, especially Arab and Palestinian leaders. Over 40 nation and organizations participated, including some prominent Arab countries, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. He called them traitors to the Palestinian cause. "The Arab states and governments were present as false witnesses to the latest of the treacherous deals to sell Palestine."
The Egyptian-born terrorist called on Muslims to stand by their Palestinian brethren in the face of those Arab leaders who would compromise with the Americans and Israelis.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Thursday, December 13, 2007
December 11th
On December 11th 1960 there was a huge snow storm in New York City. It threatened to delay the opening of a new Broadway play called Wildcat, starring Lucile Ball.
Across the Atlantic, French President Charles de Gaulle had just arrived in Algeria, which was then a French colony. He did not receive a warm welcome because France then was locked in a vicious struggle with the Algerians for political and economic control. More than a decade after World War II had opened the possibility of independence to North African nations, the French were as resistant as ever to the idea. Thus de Gaulle was "welcomed" by huge pro-independence demonstrations that turned into riots that were then crushed by French police and army units. Scores died and hundreds were wounded on a day that most Algerians see as the real beginning of the finale struggle for independence.
This year on the 11th of December, al Qaeda in North Africa filled two trucks with hundreds of pounds of explosives and set them off in the heart of Algiers. One bomb struck the UN headquarters and the other the Algerian Constitutional Council building located on the 11th of December 1960 Boulevard. A total of 67 died and more than another 150 were wounded.
Al Qaeda likes the 11th for bloody attacks. They have conducted not only the 9/11 attacks in America but other attacks in several countries on the 11th. For example, the Madrid train bombings took place on March 11th. An earlier double bombing on April 11th of this year killed 33 people in Algiers.
This latest attack on the 11th may be a message to Algerian officials not to cooperate with the French. (French resident Sarkozy visited just a couple of days earlier.) Or it may be in retaliation for the recent arrest of a top al Qadea in North Africa leader, Bouderbala Fateh, just last month. Or it may be a response to al Qadea leader Ayman Zawahiri’s call in September of this year to ‘cleanse North Africa of the children of France and Spain.’
In any case, the 11th of December will continue to be known as a bloody day of ideological struggle in Algeria.
Across the Atlantic, French President Charles de Gaulle had just arrived in Algeria, which was then a French colony. He did not receive a warm welcome because France then was locked in a vicious struggle with the Algerians for political and economic control. More than a decade after World War II had opened the possibility of independence to North African nations, the French were as resistant as ever to the idea. Thus de Gaulle was "welcomed" by huge pro-independence demonstrations that turned into riots that were then crushed by French police and army units. Scores died and hundreds were wounded on a day that most Algerians see as the real beginning of the finale struggle for independence.
This year on the 11th of December, al Qaeda in North Africa filled two trucks with hundreds of pounds of explosives and set them off in the heart of Algiers. One bomb struck the UN headquarters and the other the Algerian Constitutional Council building located on the 11th of December 1960 Boulevard. A total of 67 died and more than another 150 were wounded.
Al Qaeda likes the 11th for bloody attacks. They have conducted not only the 9/11 attacks in America but other attacks in several countries on the 11th. For example, the Madrid train bombings took place on March 11th. An earlier double bombing on April 11th of this year killed 33 people in Algiers.
This latest attack on the 11th may be a message to Algerian officials not to cooperate with the French. (French resident Sarkozy visited just a couple of days earlier.) Or it may be in retaliation for the recent arrest of a top al Qadea in North Africa leader, Bouderbala Fateh, just last month. Or it may be a response to al Qadea leader Ayman Zawahiri’s call in September of this year to ‘cleanse North Africa of the children of France and Spain.’
In any case, the 11th of December will continue to be known as a bloody day of ideological struggle in Algeria.
Friday, December 07, 2007
President Bush is going to Israel
The White House announced on Tuesday that President Bush would visit Israel next month in order to try to advance peace efforts started during the Annapolis talks.
President Bush has made multiple trips to the MidEast but all his recent trips have been to Arab countries. He has visited Jordan twice since taking office.
This will be his first trip to Israel since assuming the Presidency. He visited it while Governor of Texas in 1998. During that visit, Ariel Sharon took him on a tour of the West Bank but he didn’t meet with any Palestinian officials. This time he will presumably meet with both Israelis and Palestinians and encourage them forward in their current efforts to find a common basis for peace.
It is not known if he will visit any other place in the MidEast but that may be possible. I am sure he will be tempted to hop over to Iraq and talk to the troops who are doing such a magnificent job there.
President Bush has made multiple trips to the MidEast but all his recent trips have been to Arab countries. He has visited Jordan twice since taking office.
This will be his first trip to Israel since assuming the Presidency. He visited it while Governor of Texas in 1998. During that visit, Ariel Sharon took him on a tour of the West Bank but he didn’t meet with any Palestinian officials. This time he will presumably meet with both Israelis and Palestinians and encourage them forward in their current efforts to find a common basis for peace.
It is not known if he will visit any other place in the MidEast but that may be possible. I am sure he will be tempted to hop over to Iraq and talk to the troops who are doing such a magnificent job there.
Friday, November 30, 2007
A Word about Teddy Bears and Islam
We watch with interest as hundreds of people in Khartoum call for the execution or severe punishment of a 54-year old British elementary school teacher.
She has been convicted of the crime of insulting Islam and sentenced to 15 days in jail and deportation. But evidently that is seen by some in the Sudan as too light a punishment for her having allowed her 7 year old students to name a teddy bear Mohammed.
In the west, observers are completely baffled by the severity of the punishment for what seems to be an innocuous incident. West and East seem to be poles apart in the case.
Here is the key to understanding the case.
In Islam, there are certain animals that are considered unclean for a number of reasons. Most Westerners know about dogs being considered as unclean but most are not aware that bears are also unclean. It is a great insult to call a man a “Dhib” or bear. So even the lowly teddy bear is charged with religious meaning on a level most of us don’t understand. By naming the toy after the Prophet Mohammed the students were allowed to associate his revered name with an unclean animal. That’s what all the fuss is about. I doubt that Gillian Gibbons knew that fact when she allowed the students to pick a name or even when she picked the toy bear as a classroom tool.
Cultural understanding is important in avoiding situations like this that can then escalate to levels of unpleasantness that are unwarranted.
Unfortunately the nice British lady will probably spend two uncomfortable weeks in jail, young Sudanese students will lose a good teacher, and East and West will feel more alienated. All over a toy bear.
She has been convicted of the crime of insulting Islam and sentenced to 15 days in jail and deportation. But evidently that is seen by some in the Sudan as too light a punishment for her having allowed her 7 year old students to name a teddy bear Mohammed.
In the west, observers are completely baffled by the severity of the punishment for what seems to be an innocuous incident. West and East seem to be poles apart in the case.
Here is the key to understanding the case.
In Islam, there are certain animals that are considered unclean for a number of reasons. Most Westerners know about dogs being considered as unclean but most are not aware that bears are also unclean. It is a great insult to call a man a “Dhib” or bear. So even the lowly teddy bear is charged with religious meaning on a level most of us don’t understand. By naming the toy after the Prophet Mohammed the students were allowed to associate his revered name with an unclean animal. That’s what all the fuss is about. I doubt that Gillian Gibbons knew that fact when she allowed the students to pick a name or even when she picked the toy bear as a classroom tool.
Cultural understanding is important in avoiding situations like this that can then escalate to levels of unpleasantness that are unwarranted.
Unfortunately the nice British lady will probably spend two uncomfortable weeks in jail, young Sudanese students will lose a good teacher, and East and West will feel more alienated. All over a toy bear.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Day two of the Annapolis Talks
It appears that two days of talks in Annapolis have resulted in an agreement to agree. The Parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict have agreed to direct, near full-time negotiations on all issues until a final agreement is reached in 2008. Some of the future negotiating sessions will be hosted by Russia. President Bush has appointed retired USMC General Jones as his special representative to the two negotiating parties. (That should be a relief to MG Dayton who has been stuck with the job for the past two years.)
Agreeing to agree does not seem like a big success at first glance. But remember the Conference only lasted a day and a half and involved 40 disparate parties. It was a major accomplishment just to get them all to the table (Not quite all; Djibouti was invited but failed to attend.) Just getting people to agree who are the interested parties was a major event. Getting them to then actually participate was another. It was also an accomplishment to decide to negotiate about the issues - not to negotiate about what would be negotiated. It was a success to agree to negotiate all issues, including core issues such as Jerusalem and the Right of Return. In the past, those thorny issues have always be postponed for future talks. They have now agreed to talk directly about the tough things for the first time. To talk about all the issues all the time prevents one party or the other from using arguments of sequential nature to slow progress across the board.
Hopefully, General Jones will play a useful role in determining negotiation procedures and venues. Getting the parties back into talks again will be a challenge but it should be undertaken quickly to prevent forces opposed to conflict resolution from marshalling their forces and resources against peace. Setting up lines of communications between parties who are not used to talking is another valuable role America can play.
Annapolis appears to have been an agreeable success but it is only the first stop a new track towards peace. Many things can derail it. Let us hope that this effort makes farther down the tracks than past efforts and that it finally brings great peace, prosperity and understanding to the troubled MidEast.
Agreeing to agree does not seem like a big success at first glance. But remember the Conference only lasted a day and a half and involved 40 disparate parties. It was a major accomplishment just to get them all to the table (Not quite all; Djibouti was invited but failed to attend.) Just getting people to agree who are the interested parties was a major event. Getting them to then actually participate was another. It was also an accomplishment to decide to negotiate about the issues - not to negotiate about what would be negotiated. It was a success to agree to negotiate all issues, including core issues such as Jerusalem and the Right of Return. In the past, those thorny issues have always be postponed for future talks. They have now agreed to talk directly about the tough things for the first time. To talk about all the issues all the time prevents one party or the other from using arguments of sequential nature to slow progress across the board.
Hopefully, General Jones will play a useful role in determining negotiation procedures and venues. Getting the parties back into talks again will be a challenge but it should be undertaken quickly to prevent forces opposed to conflict resolution from marshalling their forces and resources against peace. Setting up lines of communications between parties who are not used to talking is another valuable role America can play.
Annapolis appears to have been an agreeable success but it is only the first stop a new track towards peace. Many things can derail it. Let us hope that this effort makes farther down the tracks than past efforts and that it finally brings great peace, prosperity and understanding to the troubled MidEast.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Annapolis Talks
Annapolis is most often thought of as a nautical town with the presence of the U.S. Naval Academy. This time of year it is cold and blustery with wind-driven clouds, occasional rain, dying leaves, and migrating geese overhead. But right now it is the scene of U.S.-hosted Mideast Peace talks. Representatives of 40 countries have met together to see what happens. I don’t think they have met to actually make peace in the region. The conflicts there are too historic and too intractable for resolution by the parties assembled in Maryland. And because of that, the political expectations and press coverage are equally low.
That said, the mere fact that such a disparate group has assembled at one location is historic in and of itself. It should be noted that they are here because of America. We invited them and they came. Not the UN; not the EU; not the Russians. Only America maintains relations with all; even the radicals. And only we have enough leverage to make them come. It is also an indication that the parties themselves are concerned about the situation in the region and concerned that nothing be altered without their knowledge and participation.
They are concerned not just about Arab-Israeli relations but Shi’a-Sunni conflicts, oil, terrorism, disintegration of polities, the dollar, Iraq, Lebanon, nuclear ambitions, Darfur, Somalia, Gaza, and a host of other very real issues. Annapolis provides a wonderful opportunity for many of these issues to be discussed on the margins. In fact the whole Conference may be just a discussion on the margins by people who don’t normally get to talk with one another.
The MidEast is a place where perceptions are often more important that reality. That is why so many of the parties put out lists of pre-conditions to their attendance. They wanted to ensure the continuation of some of the perceptions and deceptions that make resolution of conflicts so difficult in the region. My father used to tell me that the worst lie you ever tell is the one you tell yourself. Many of the participants in this conference have not only done that but they have told themselves these “lies” so long they have started to believe them. Chief among these self-deceptions is that Arabs and Israelis can not resolve their conflicts except by violence. Rationalization of their own faults and false perceptions of other actors have impacted on the ability of all the players to make reality-based decisions.
The reality of Annapolis is different than that experienced by most of the participants back at their homes. The damp leaves and green lawns are not their normal environment. There will be lively discussions about what seafood is halal or kosher. There will be frantic purchases of sweaters and rain jackets as they try to adjust to a new physical reality. Hopefully, Annapolis will help the players to realize that there is a bigger world and reality beyond the MidEast. And peace and cooperation with that broader world is possible and desirable.
That said, the mere fact that such a disparate group has assembled at one location is historic in and of itself. It should be noted that they are here because of America. We invited them and they came. Not the UN; not the EU; not the Russians. Only America maintains relations with all; even the radicals. And only we have enough leverage to make them come. It is also an indication that the parties themselves are concerned about the situation in the region and concerned that nothing be altered without their knowledge and participation.
They are concerned not just about Arab-Israeli relations but Shi’a-Sunni conflicts, oil, terrorism, disintegration of polities, the dollar, Iraq, Lebanon, nuclear ambitions, Darfur, Somalia, Gaza, and a host of other very real issues. Annapolis provides a wonderful opportunity for many of these issues to be discussed on the margins. In fact the whole Conference may be just a discussion on the margins by people who don’t normally get to talk with one another.
The MidEast is a place where perceptions are often more important that reality. That is why so many of the parties put out lists of pre-conditions to their attendance. They wanted to ensure the continuation of some of the perceptions and deceptions that make resolution of conflicts so difficult in the region. My father used to tell me that the worst lie you ever tell is the one you tell yourself. Many of the participants in this conference have not only done that but they have told themselves these “lies” so long they have started to believe them. Chief among these self-deceptions is that Arabs and Israelis can not resolve their conflicts except by violence. Rationalization of their own faults and false perceptions of other actors have impacted on the ability of all the players to make reality-based decisions.
The reality of Annapolis is different than that experienced by most of the participants back at their homes. The damp leaves and green lawns are not their normal environment. There will be lively discussions about what seafood is halal or kosher. There will be frantic purchases of sweaters and rain jackets as they try to adjust to a new physical reality. Hopefully, Annapolis will help the players to realize that there is a bigger world and reality beyond the MidEast. And peace and cooperation with that broader world is possible and desirable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)