Qatar draws scepticism over Darfur

Vivian Salama

March 29. 2009 

DOHA // In the past year, the tiny Arab Gulf emirate of Qatar has brokered a historic peace deal between political opponents in Lebanon and played host to a number of Arab League summits as well as to the Doha Round of world trade talks.

However, as the host of the latest Arab League summit, scheduled to begin tomorrow, Qatar has drawn scepticism as to its ability to fairly mediate one of the Arab world’s deadliest and longest-running conflicts: Darfur.

Amnesty International has called upon Qatar and members of the League of Arab States to enforce the arrest warrant against Omar al Bashir, the Sudanese president, before this week’s meeting.

The Qatari government and the Arab League have refused to arrest the Sudanese leader, wanted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court (ICC), saying his arrest would further destabilise the country. Qatar, like most of the Arab League nations, is not a signatory to the ICC’s founding treaty.

The 22-nation organisation is expected to address regional issues, including the arrest warrant for Sudan’s president and Palestinian divisions.

Sudan's Al Bashir is wanted by the ICC for war crimes and crimes against humanity

Mr al Bashir is expected to attend the meeting. Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president, who met the embattled Sudanese leader in Cairo last week, yesterday said he would not come to Doha.

Although some regional analysts said they believe the refusal to detain Mr al Bashir is no surprise, it could compromise Qatar’s credibility to serve as a regional arbitrator.

“I do not think it is in Qatar or any Arab country’s best interest to arrest President Bashir, but certainly some of the rebel groups in Darfur might see this as taking sides,” said Saleem Ali, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Centre.

Home to substantial oil and natural gas reserves, Qatar in recent years has cultivated a reputation as a friend to almost anyone. It plays host to one of the largest US military bases and, until the recent incursion on Gaza, to one of few Israeli commercial offices in the region.

Qatar is on amicable terms with Iran and has staunchly defended the interests of Hamas and Chechen separatists. In 2005, Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al Thani, bestowed a gift of US$100 million (Dh367m) to assist the victims of Hurricane Katrina, while also investing $1.5 billion to build an oil refinery in Zimbabwe.

“Qatar is punching above its weight,” said James Reardon-Anderson, the dean of Georgetown University in Qatar. “So you see it in their foreign policy – the Lebanon deal, the Darfur deal, they are trying to be bigger than they are.”

The emergence of Qatar in recent years from a tiny and somewhat underdeveloped nation of one million – 75 per cent of whom are expatriates – into an international hub for sport, education, science, trade and culture, has been regarded as the emirate’s first step towards becoming a global political heavyweight.

“The leadership here really sees this as an opportunity to transfer this wealth of natural gas into human capacity and to use that momentum to affirm their culture and affirm their vision and transform their society,” Mr Reardon-Anderson said.

Once the exclusive domain of Saudi Arabia in the Gulf and Egypt in the broader Middle East, the role of political intermediary and conciliator has fit Qatar, which has invited everyone from Iranian and Israeli diplomats and provided a home base to US military personnel and Sheikh Yusuf al Qaradawi, a hardliner Sunni cleric.

“Qatar is generally well positioned to play a mediating roll because it has very good relations with the West and at the same time it is perceived in the Islamic establishment as having some sympathies with Islamist causes,” Mr Ali said. “Because of this rather unusual mix of circumstances, it is really a tight rope that they are walking on now particularly because of this US military base.”

In 2003, the United States announced it would pull out virtually all of its troops from its military base in Saudi Arabia, long deemed a symbol of Washington’s influence in the region. The US Central headquarters in Qatar and the Fifth Fleet naval base in Bahrain drew a sea of controversy for the two Gulf nations, particularly after US military operations began in Iraq in 2003.

It is, some argue, Qatar’s role as a media hub since the launch of its home-based network, Al Jazeera, in 1996 that has brought it the greatest praises and criticism. Various regional governments have condemned the Qatari government for allowing Al Jazeera to boldly criticise Arab regimes while protecting the image of Qatar. In 2002 Saudi Arabia broke diplomatic ties with Qatar over the issue, but resumed them in 2007 when Qatar promised to rein in coverage.

Pakistan Needs a Coalition Government

Vivian Salama

PostGlobal

In less than one month, Pakistan’s government has conceded not once, but three times, to challengers both political and militant in nature. Those concessions have raised concerns about Pakistan’s vulnerability and its inability to suppress its growing militant problem or prevent violent disputes with the opposition.

The first concession came last month when, after more than a year-long offensive in the embattled Swat Valley, the military signed a cease fire with the Taliban, folding to the longtime demands of Islamic militants to implement Shari’a law in the region. Some of the region’s residents remain hopeful that the region will return to a Shari’a that was at one time a moderate, locally-based alternative to the country’s drawn-out federal legal proceedings. But the concession blatantly exposes the Pakistani military’s inability to prevent extremism from seeping into the heart of the country. Located a mere 160 kilometers from Islamabad, Taliban militants now stand at Pakistan’s front door. It is only a matter of time before they move in. 

The second concession was on March 3rd, when at least 12 heavily armed militants staged a commando-style attack on a convoy carrying the Sri Lankan national cricket team, coaches and referees to the Gadaffi Stadium in Lahore. I will not explore the various conspiracy theories now floating around Pakistan about who is to blame for these atrocious attacks, which claimed the lives of six police officers and a driver. But I will point out that at the time this post was published, all the assailants remained at large. The scene of the crime, Liberty Square, is a heavily congested roundabout in the heart of Pakistan’s cultural capital. The attacks happened not in the evening like the Mumbai attacks, but during the morning rush hour. There is surveillance video shot by camera crews at television studios based in Liberty Square. The gunmen are reported to have been carrying large bags. British cricket referee Chris Broad has lashed out at the Pakistani government, saying that there was no sign of security at the time of the attacks. The fact that the gunmen got away and have thus far managed to avoid arrest is alarming.

In an interview with opposition leader Nawaz Sharif days after the attacks, Sharif claimed that the government’s failure to ensure the security of the cricketers is the direct result of its preoccupation with politics and stifling the opposition. 

Finally, after the February 25th decision by Pakistan’s Supreme Court to ban Nawaz Sharif and his brother from elected office, President Asif Zardari’s decision to reinstate Iftikhar Chaudhry, the country’s Chief Justice, came as a surprise to many. 

The past few days have been particularly turbulent in Lahore, the capital of Punjab, Pakistan’s largest province and the PML-N stronghold. The highly anticipated cross country “long march” never made it to Islamabad as protesters had initially planned, but it found victory in Lahore. Many pundits pointing to “Punjab Power” as the source of the shake-up. 

President Zardari has never been popular. He was not popular even as the husband of Benazir Bhutto, when she was Prime Minister. As the leader of a civilian government, he is far more vulnerable to the will of the people than his military predecessor, the equally unpopular General Pervez Musharraf, who had the backing of the army.

His decision to reinstate Iftikhar Chaudhry was indeed a positive step, but it is not the solution to Pakistan’s problems. A coalition government, similar to that agreed upon between Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif just before Bhutto’s assassination, is now needed if Pakistan is to take a serious step against its increasingly dangerous militant problem. Pakistan’s current leadership must show that it is above petty politics by genuinely reaching out to the opposition, rather than making occasional concessions that ultimately expose its inner weaknesses. 

Pakistan arrests lawyers ahead of cross-country march

Vivian Salama

The National

March 12, 2009

LAHORE // Hundreds of political activists and lawyers were arrested yesterday in an effort to thwart a cross-country march scheduled to begin today.

The government outlawed anti-government demonstrations by lawyers and opposition parties in Islamabad, as well as in the provinces of Punjab and Sindh, through which the rally is to proceed. Tens of thousands are expected to take to the streets in a move to persuade Asif Ali Zardari, the president, to reinstate several judges dismissed under the authority of Pervez Musharraf, the former president. 

The convoy of cars and buses, due to begin this morning in Baluchistan and Sindh provinces, are scheduled to reach Punjab, the stronghold of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) party, by tomorrow. The protest will conclude with a sit-in on Monday in Islamabad, where demonstrators have vowed to stay until their demands are met. However, with the clampdown on protests across the country, turnout may be significantly tapered, causing the movement to lose steam. 

Even evening street fairs celebrating the birthday of the Prophet Mohammed were scaled down markedly in an effort to prevent them from becoming political rally points.
This struggle is now two years in the making. In March 2007, Mr Musharraf dismissed Iftikhar Chaudhry, the chief justice at the time, and several judges, accusing them of misconduct after passing several rulings that cited government corruption. The disbandment of the judiciary sparked several months of uprisings, leading Mr Musharraf to declare a state of emergency and to suspend the country’s constitution and parliament in Nov 2007.
“Musharraf was already extremely unpopular with the masses and this topped it off,” said Umbreen Javed, the chairman of the department of political science at the University of Punjab. “But President Zardari has not been a very popular president either since he took over, and this issue is a major point of contention for the people.”

Nawaz Sharif, the PML-N leader, is expected to join the crowd of protesters. 

Speaking before hundreds of supporters at a rally yesterday, he implored people not to allow efforts by the government to impede the long march hinder their hopes of “saving Pakistan”.

On Feb 25, a three-judge Supreme Court panel barred Mr Sharif, and his brother, Shahbaz, the former chief minister of Punjab, from elected office. The brothers have accused Mr Zardari of trying to clamp down on the opposition, reigniting tensions between the country’s largest political parties.

Nawaz Sharif said the Supreme Court is dominated by judges appointed by Mr Musharraf during the 2007 state of emergency, and it is Mr Zardari’s obligation now to restore the original, and ultimately independent, judiciary.

“These are the doings of General Musharraf,” Mr Sharif said. “He is the one actually who dismissed all those judges, who refused to qualify them to contest the election of a president in uniform, who didn’t permit anyone to contest the elections of the president or even the parliament.”

In an interview with the official Associated Press of Pakistan, Rehman Malik, the interior minister, warned Mr Sharif not to use the march as an opportunity to incite a rebellion, threatening criminal charges should the gathering turn to chaos. “We will proceed against those who are inciting the masses to revolt at public gatherings in case of any damage to human life or property,” Mr Malik told a news conference.

The lawyers and a league of opposition parties, pose a significant challenge to the civilian government of Mr Zardari, which has refused to reinstate Mr Chaudhry. 

A spokeswoman for the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), headed by Mr Zardari, said Mr Chaudhry’s only motive in this march is to destabilise the country. “The restoration of judges issue is a non-issue now because most have been reinstated and others retired,” said Farzana Raja, the spokeswoman. The opposition “are talking about an individual. Iftikhar Chaudhry had the chance [to rejoin the judiciary], but he did not do it because he was playing into somebody else’s hands.”

Government officials claimed that the recent ban on public gatherings in Punjab is not in an effort to stifle the opposition, but rather, to maintain law and order following last week’s deadly attack on a convoy carrying the Sri Lankan national cricket team to the Gadaffi Stadium in Lahore. At least 12 heavily armed assailants are believed to have been responsible for the attacks – all of whom remain at large.

“The government of Mr Zardari has been too busy rearranging the government of Punjab that they forgot about the security of the people of Pakistan,” Mr Sharif said.

However, the PPP has made a similar allegation against Mr Sharif, accusing him of putting his own political motives ahead of national stability and the fight against terrorism.

Mr Sharif “always promotes and raises his voice for Iftikhar Chaudhry –for an individual”, Ms Raja said.

“The whole world is under the threat of extremism and terrorism and rather than concentrating on that, he is talking about politics – for whom? One individual.”

Pakistan’s Sharif Blames Politics for Security Lapses

I got the chance to interview Nawaz Sharif at his Lahore home today. It was great timing given a move by the courts to ban him last week, followed by this week’s tragic attacks here in Lahore.  He was extremely soft spoken — almost gentle.  Not what I expected for a 3 time former prime minister of Pakistan. His estate on the outskirts of Lahore was incredible.  The decor was extremely elegant but the greenery was most impressive. His aide told me that when Sharif returned from seven years in exile in 2007, the grass, plants and trees were all brown.  Mr Sharif himself told me of the day he was arrested and how the army trampled across the landscaping he had worked so hard to maintain.  Less than 2 years after his return and the landscaping is thriving, as is he. (see below for a photo of Nawaz Sharif and I)

TIME.com

VIVIAN SALAMA / LAHORE

Pakistani opposition leader Nawaz Sharif

The serene confines of Nawaz Sharif’s sprawling Lahore estate belie his tumultuous career. He has thrice been Prime Minister of Pakistan, only to be exiled for seven years, returning recently to help his erstwhile rivals defeat a common nemesis, General Pervez Musharraf. In the meantime, the coalition between Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz and the Pakistan People’s Party (led, until her assassination, by his constant antagonist Benazir Bhutto and now headed by her widower, Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistan’s President) has collapsed into bitter recrimination. Last week, the country’s Supreme Court barred the ex-Premier and his brother, the Chief Minister of Punjab, from public office, a move Sharif accuses Zardari of masterminding. In an interview with TIME, Sharif spoke of his relations with Pakistan’s President and other developments, including this week’s attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team.

TIME: Many here in Pakistan were shocked and surprised by the attacks on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore. In your opinion, how was the situation handled?
Sharif: Some better security arrangements should have been in place. So far nothing has come out; nobody has been caught or arrested. The government was too busy trying to get our party dislodged from [the Sharif family's stronghold] Punjab, and then they imposed governor’s rule [direct rule of Punjab province by the Pakistani federal government] just a few days ago. (See pictures of the cricket-team attack.)

Are you suggesting that the security situation was the result of political wrangling and distractions?
Absolutely. A lot of people were being reshuffled: pushed out, pushed in. They were in the process of removing so many people from the government. When such things take place, security suffers. The same goes for other areas in Pakistan because the problems we are facing are far too serious in nature and no party can solve them single-handedly. The government single-handedly cannot fight this crisis.

Do you think the army might step in if the security situation does not improve in time?
I hope not, but much depends on how Zardari conducts himself as far as democracy is concerned, if he does things to strengthen democratic institutions. I don’t think that the present leadership of the army is inclined to step out of its domain. But you can’t really handle security by dismissing members of the government and imposing governor’s rule. It is aggravating the situation actually and adding fuel to the fire.

What are we fighting the terrorists for if we ourselves do not even stand up for democracy — civil liberties and fundamental rights — which includes independence of the judiciary?

Do you believe that Zardari is trying to stifle opposition?
We don’t pose a threat to Mr. Zardari. All my party is talking about is a democratic Pakistan. This is what we actually decided with Benazir Bhutto. She is the one who signed the Charter of Democracy with me. It was the political will of Benazir Bhutto, which Mr. Zardari should have followed and acted upon. He has not followed her political will. He has taken a different agenda altogether, an agenda which will take Pakistan further away from democracy.

The Supreme Court’s decision effectively bars you from contesting the presidency in 2013. But you’ve said you are not driven to seek office of any kind. What do you say to skeptics who believe you will inevitably do so?
Ask Mr. Zardari. Did I ever seek an office from him? Did I ever say that I want the office of the President or of Prime Minister? We have sacrificed everything for the sake of democracy. This is a noble agenda, and I think the civil society of this country, the youth, the lawyers’ society and the media are all on one side.

Zardari’s spokesman says you do not talk about terrorism and that you raise only the issue of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikar Chaudhry [whose dismissal by Musharraf led to the dramatic 2007 revolt of Pakistan's lawyers; Zardari has not restored Chaudhry to his old post, a move Sharif has demanded]. What is your reaction to this?
We were partners, but now the partnership is over. We have been going the extra mile to support the government on fighting the issue of terrorism and extremism. We enabled the government to pass a resolution in the National Assembly and then how to deal with this problem.

[But] there was an agenda we signed together when we formed our government. It was a democratic agenda to re-establish a rule of law, constitutional supremacy, the sovereignty of the parliament and the independence of the judiciary. These were the primary objectives laid down before signing this agreement between me and Mr. Zardari. These things have not been implemented at all. The legal fraternity today is up in arms with what they consider judges who were brought into these courts by Mr. Musharraf. Their allegiance was not to the state but to Mr. Musharraf and now to Mr. Zardari.

On March 16, you will participate in a long march calling for the reinstatement of judges dismissed by Musharraf. What are you looking to accomplish?

If they get reinstated, then the country will get an independent judiciary. If they get reinstated, there will be rule of law in the country. If they get reinstated, all these controversial amendments in the constitution introduced by Mr. Musharraf will have to be repealed. I think for any society to develop and become a civilized society, they need an independent judiciary.

But given the overall deterioration of security in the country, is this the right time to push this issue?

It is never the right time for a long march, but is this the right time for the government to disqualify its opponents? Is this the right time for Mr. Zardari to impose governor’s rule in the biggest province in the country? Is this the right time for Mr. Zardari to create these divisions within the coalition? I think the need was to make everybody come together at the table. Mr. Zardari should have done that. Now is the time to act as President of the people of Pakistan, not as the president of the Pakistan People’s Party.

…And Now, Time to Fix the Domestic Economy

by Vivian Salama

PostGlobal – WashingtonPost.com

 

The last sip of celebratory champagne is now gone, and so, without a moment’s delay, it is imperative for President-elect Barack Obama to assemble a strong strategic transitional team that can work to heal the wounds of a disillusioned America. A carefully selected team must coordinate with the Bush administration in ensuring a smooth and effective handover. Traditionally the President-elect has stayed out of the spotlight in the two-and-a-half months prior to his inauguration. However, in the words of Senator Hillary Clinton, never have we had as “lame duck” a president as George W. Bush.

President-elect Obama was the clear choice for triggering the shockwave needed at a time when America has few friends abroad and domestic confidence in government is at an all-time low. While people around the world continue to celebrate the clear and momentous significance the victory of Barack Obama signifies in our world’s history, we mustn’t forget that there is a crisis at hand that catchy slogans and smooth-talking rhetoric can not and will not solve. His administration should act quickly in order to capitalize on the momentum of this historic victory.

Where I sit in Dubai, the excitement surrounding a Barack Obama victory is palpable — and the same holds true for the entire region. This election meant so much to so many people around the world for several reasons. People in much of the Middle East have lived the last eight years fearful that one wrong word could bring American warplanes calling.

However, confident markets like Dubai’s and bullish markets like that of Egypt found themselves in a nosedive with news that Wall Street was losing steam. Repairing America’s reputation globally must start with an immediate — and non-partisan — fix to the domestic economy. A distracted and bitterly divided Washington ignored several issues surrounding Congress’s $700 billion bailout package. Financial institutions receiving government support are suspected, in some cases, of having used the capital for other purposes. If the government is going to alter its role by nationalizing banks, then those banks should be susceptible to a stringent checks and balances system. President-elect Obama has not a moment to spare if he and his administration, wish to avoid catastrophe and earn the trust and respect of Americans, their colleagues in Washington, and citizens of the world.

He must also consider certain long-overdue ways of trimming costs, such as closing Guantanamo Bay and cutbacks of any and all unnecessary expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan (so long as they do not compromise the security of American troops or the inhabitants of both countries).

The elections are over — now it is time to get to work.

It may sound cliché to link this historic event to the American dream — but then, many called the candidacy of the junior senator from Illinois just that; a dream and nothing more. As an American-born child of immigrants, I have seen marginalization, and I have felt cynical that the country to which my parents have given so much would not give back in the same way. The last eight years have been tainted by disappointment, fear and disenfranchisement. It is time for change in the most radical of ways. Many believe that if Obama can win the presidency, then anything is possible. Barack Obama has captured the support and admiration of millions around the world. The hard part now is deciding how to maintain it. The road to financial recovery is one that is long and grueling. However, if he can pave it smoothly and quickly, I reckon that people around the world will readily follow. 

Political Storm Finds a Columbia Professor

As a former student of Rashid Khalidi, I can say with confidence that the accusations by Sarah Palin and John McCain of the professor’s “radical” associations to the PLO are absolutely outrageous and infuriating.  The fact that they would dedicate so much time to such a trivial (and false) subject just days before the election, when the country’s economy is tanking and its troops are dying, confirms in my mind the fact that a McCain/Palin ticket will only lead our country into further catastrophe.  There are plenty of people around the world who regard advisors to the Bush administration as also having links to a “terrorist organization.” What they have done to Dr Khalidi is, in my opinion, defamatory and I really hope that Americans recognize that.  

Political Storm Finds a Columbia Professor

By MARC SANTORA and ELISSA GOOTMAN

Published: October 30, 2008

Rashid Khalidi had been bracing for the storm for months, friends said

Since an April news report detailing his relationship with Senator Barack Obama, Mr. Khalidi, a Middle East scholar and passionate defender ofPalestinian rights, had waited to see himself caricatured by Republicans as part of a rogues’ gallery of Obama associates, which has come to include the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. andWilliam C. Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground.

He was surprised, the friends said, that so little criticism came — until this last frenzied week before the election, when Senator John McCain cited the April article in The Los Angeles Times about a dinner Mr. Obama attended in Mr. Khalidi’s honor in 2003, and questioned Mr. Obama’s commitment to Israel.

In recent days, Republican partisans have accused Mr. Khalidi, a professor at Columbia University since 2003, of everything from anti-Semitism to baby-sitting for Mr. Obama’s children.

For Columbia, the firestorm is the latest episode in a string of messy, public controversies regarding Middle East politics. In 2004, pro-Palestinian professors were accused of intimidating Jewish students. Mr. Khalidi was not one of those teachers, but he was barred the next year from lecturing New York City public school teachers for having used the words “racist” and “apartheid” in discussions of Israel.

“It just seems really ironic to me that Rashid would be singled out as a figure in the trumped-up controversy,” Alan Brinkley, Columbia’s provost and a friend of Mr. Khalidi’s since 1985, said in a telephone interview Thursday. “In a field that is often politicized, he is respected by people on the right as well as the left.”

Ariel Beery, a former Columbia student leader who was involved in a pro-Israel group’s film about the 2004 controversy, said Mr. Khalidi was different from those accused of intimidation.

“In terms of his role as a professor, he was excellent,” Mr. Beery said Thursday in a telephone interview from Israel, where he lives. “He was provoking, he always allowed for different opinions, he had an open zone where people could voice their disagreement.”

Mr. Beery did criticize Mr. Khalidi’s leadership of the Middle East Institute at Columbia, saying it was “highly politicized” and “not promoting a diverse view of the Middle East.”

Mr. Khalidi, who is on sabbatical, declined to comment.

Mr. Khalidi, the Edward Said professor of Arab studies at Columbia, was born in Manhattan in 1948. His father, a Palestinian Muslim born in Jerusalem, worked for theUnited Nations, and his mother, a Lebanese-American Christian, was an interior decorator. He graduated from the United Nations International School and earned his bachelor’s degree from Yale in 1970 and a doctorate from Oxford University in 1974.

He taught at universities in Lebanon until the mid-’80s, and some critics accuse him of having been a spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization. Mr. Khalidi has denied working for the group, and says he was consulted as an expert by reporters seeking to understand it.

He was an adviser to the Palestinian delegation during Middle East peace talks from 1991 to 1993. From 1987 until 2003, he was a professor at the University of Chicago, where he became friends with Mr. Obama.

At Mr. Khalidi’s farewell party in 2003, according to the Los Angeles Times article, Mr. Obama fondly recalled their many conversations, saying they provided “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases.” But Mr. Khalidi told Harper’s Magazine that a report in National Review Online that he had baby-sat for Mr. Obama’s children was nonsense.

Daniel Pipes, who directs the conservative Middle East Forum, said: “If one’s talking about American political life, he’s at the extremes, at the margins. If one’s talking about the field of Middle East studies, he’s in the middle of it. But the field itself is dominated by professors who do not permit other points of view.”

In 2005, after a New York Sun article highlighted some of Mr. Khalidi’s statements, the New York City schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein, barred Mr. Khalidi from a teacher-training course. In an interview with The New York Times, Mr. Khalidi said then that he “may have used the word ‘racist’ about Israeli policies,” and acknowledged saying in a speech that if the movement of Palestinians continued to be restricted, “it would develop into worse than the apartheid system.”

Addressing an accusation that he had endorsed the killing of Israeli soldiers as legitimate “resistance” to occupation, he said: “Under international law, resistance to occupation is legitimate. I didn’t endorse killing Israeli soldiers. These people will take anything out of context. Anyone who knows me knows the last thing I am is extreme. I’ve called suicide bombings a war crime. I’m a ferocious critic of Arafat.”

Rabbi J. Rolando Matalon of Congregation B’nai Jeshurun, a liberal synagogue on the Upper West Side, said he has known Mr. Khalidi for years and called the allegations “completely absurd and uncalled for and malicious.”

Referring to comments he had seen on blogs and television, he said, “In no way has he ever indicated that he favors the destruction or disappearance of Israel,” and added, “He has always been consistently in favor of dialogue and common ground.”

At Columbia, Mr. Khalidi is known as a gregarious scholar who takes a special interest in students, often meeting them for lunch near campus and hosting dinners featuring Palestinian food cooked by his wife, Mona, an assistant dean at the university. After he came under attack this week, students created a Facebook group called “I stand by Rashid Khalidi,” with 205 members by Thursday night.

“He makes history entertaining,” said Maher Awartani, 24, an Arab student leader who has taken his class. “It’s like a grandfather telling his grandson a story of what happened.”

Mr. Awartani criticized not just the McCain campaign but also the Obama campaign’s tepid response, saying, “It should have been like, yes, I know him, and I’d like to know more Middle East experts, because that’s an important thing when you’re making policies.”

Karen Zraick contributed reporting.

 

Official Al Qaeda Statement: Humiliate the Republicans

Al Qaeda has finally made an official statement of policy regarding the 2008 US elections, and it is a ringing “anti-endorsement” for the Republican Party. 

The ”anti-endorsement”, posted on the jihadist forums a week before the Election Day 2008, was included towards the end of the message. The message, from Al Qaeda leader (and Bagram prison escapee) Abu Yahya al Libi, was a Khutba or sermon delivered in honor of the Eid al Fitre holiday. 

Unlike 2004, when Bin Laden referenced both candidates by name, but refrained from actually endorsing either, Al Libi specifically calls for the wrath of Allah to be brought down upon the Republicans. 

The message is more of a “vote against” message calling for the party of Bush to be humiliated, rather than a “vote for” message promoting Obama and the Democrats: 

Oh Allah, Lord of mankind, humiliate Bush and his party! 

Oh, Allah, degrade and defy him! 

Oh Allah, Lord of mankind, defy him!

Oh Allah, make him live a day like the day Pharoah, Haman, and Qarun experienced, making him an example… 

Comments about the election have been few and far between on the jihadist forums and in message from Al Qaeda leadership this year. This is a sharp contrast to the 2004 election, when discussion about candidates Bush and Kerry began months in advance of Election Day, and culminated in an official As Sahab release of a video tape from Osama bin Laden. 

In a video released just 4 days before Election Day 2004, Bin Laden said: 

Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al-Qa’ida. 
Your security is in your own hands” 

At this point, it is not known whether or not Bin Laden will comment on the 2008 US Presidential Election. With just days to go before the election, we’ll know soon whether or not Bin Laden will make a 
statement. 

In the meantime, it appears obvious from Al Libi’s statement that Al Qaeda is not supporting the Republicans.

Wake Up, America!

I was reading a really interesting op-ed by Frank Rich in the New York Times today called the McCain and Palin Shotgun Wedding.  In it, he discusses McCain’s tendency to advocate party reforms but his failure to actually lead them.  He also legitimately questions the identity of Sarah Palin who appeared out of thin air some two weeks ago becoming an overnight sensation despite having proved herself far less than Obama, a point of major contention amongst the Republicans.  Given that McCain is edging slightly ahead in the polls (to my shock and dismay), and given that he is 72 years old and has a history of illnesses, there is a fair chance that this mystery woman could become president…. How can America let this happen?  She’s set on drilling everything in sight (including her own home state); she believes that the government — and not the individual — should decide on the fate of American pregnancies; and she and her party do not support universal health care — something every democracy but America supports.  I won’t even begin to discuss the audacity of the Republican views on gun control (or lack there of).  WAKE UP AMERICA!!!! The country is in a major crisis!!!  The economy is tanking and our troops are dying…. we MUST make a change before it is too late!!!!  

Frank Rich’s column references some inaccurate references about Obama made by McCain during his RNC speech last week.  I think they are important and thought I’d post them below.  I hope you will all share your thoughts on the elections in the coming weeks!

 

FactChecking McCain

September 5, 2008

He made some flubs in accepting the nomination.

Summary

We checked the accuracy of McCain’s speech accepting the Republican nomination and noted the following:
 

• McCain claimed that Obama’s health care plan would “force small businesses to cut jobs” and would put “a bureaucrat … between you and your doctor.” In fact, the plan exempts small businesses, and those who have insurance now could keep the coverage they have. 

• McCain attacked Obama for voting for “corporate welfare” for oil companies. In fact, the bill Obama voted for raised taxes on oil companies by $300 million over 11 years while providing $5.8 billion in subsidies for renewable energy, energy efficiency and alternative fuels.
  

   

• McCain said oil imports send “$700 billion a year to countries that don’t like us very much.” But the U.S. is on track to import a total of only $536 billion worth of oil at current prices, and close to a third of that comes from Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom. 

• He promised to increase use of “wind, tide [and] solar” energy, though his actual energy plan contains no new money for renewable energy. He has said elsewhere that renewable sources won’t produce as much as people think. 

• He called for “reducing government spending and getting rid of failed programs,” but as in the past failed to cite a single program that he would eliminate or reduce. 

• He said Obama would “close” markets to trade. In fact, Obama, though he once said he wanted to “renegotiate” the North American Free Trade Agreement, now says he simply wants to try to strengthen environmental and labor provisions in it.

The Cost of Major U.S. Wars

I stumbled upon this report today and found it really interesting, particularly given the state of the US economy these days.  It is mind boggling to think how much money President Bush and his father spent alone on warfare —- all the while, the economy took a hit during both presidencies.  It is high time America stopped trying to fix the world and started working to fix itself!  

 

Costs of Major U.S. Wars 

Stephen Daggett - Specialist in Defense Policy and Budgets 

Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division 

 

 

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress has appropriated more than $800 billion for military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere around the world, including $65 billion to cover costs for the first few months of FY2009. Almost as soon as the next Administration takes office, the military services are expected to submit requests for additional funds — quite possibly $100 billion or more — to cover costs of overseas operations and of repairing and replacing worn equipment through the remainder of the fiscal year. In the face of these rather substantial and growing amounts, a recurring question has been how the mounting costs of the nation’s current wars compare to the costs of earlier conflicts.

Click here to read more

UAE cities at odds over lifestyle, ties to Iran

from the IHT today.  Interesting – i was just discussing this with a friend today!  Who’s to say that small and overly pretentious countries with strong ties to the United States are not at risk of getting onto the bad side of defiant neighbors given the evolving world order?

Associated Press

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates: Abu Dhabi and Dubai have been rivals for decades, one building world-class museums as fast as the other has been throwing up skyscrapers.

But the healthy competition that’s helped transform them into two of the Middle East’s most vibrant and bustling cities has soured as they grow increasingly divided over their relations with two other rivals — Iran and the United States.

At first, the differences were cultural. Dubai’s sprawling beaches, American-style theme parks and over-the-top shopping malls clash with the more prim sophistication of Abu Dhabi, which is building a symphony orchestra and branches of the Guggenheim and Louvre museums.

But now Dubai’s soaring commercial growth, liberal Western outlook — and massive trade with Iran — are becoming a liability for U.S.-friendly Abu Dhabi.

With half the population and glitz of Dubai, Abu Dhabi is the richest emirate and capital of the seven that make up the United Arab Emirates. As the world’s fourth largest exporter of oil, Abu Dhabi is also the main provider for the rest of the semi-independent states, including Dubai.

That gives Abu Dhabi the political capital to assert its authority and rein in Dubai’s at times murky commercial dealings with Iran.

The UAE and other Sunni-ruled Arab states are suspicious of Shiite Iran, just a boat ride across the Gulf from Dubai. They share the West’s concern over Iran’s nuclear program and fear Tehran’s growing ability to empower Shiites across the region, especially in Iraq.

Iran and the UAE have diplomatic ties and both benefit from their booming commerce. Thousands of Iranian business are based in Dubai, which also hosts the Arab world’s largest Iranian expat community.

With U.S. sanctions against Iran already in place and Washington threatening new penalties for Tehran’s failure to curb uranium enrichment, Dubai is finding it more difficult to defend its lucrative commercial dealingswith Iran’s ruling elite.

The UAE has been a loyal ally in America’s war on terror. The U.S. has been allowed to operate in an airbase in the outskirts of Abu Dhabi and its warships regularly dock in Dubai’s ports.

But Iranian investment in Dubai — about US$14 billion each year — buoys a robust development plan largely financed with foreign cash. The trade is also huge boost to Tehran’s confidence that it can survive Western-imposed sanctions.

“Iran is not suffering from sanctions if it can still bring things through Dubai,” said Jean-François Seznec, a Gulf specialist at Georgetown University.

Last year, the Bush administration asked Abu Dhabi to crack down on companies suspected of smuggling equipment to Iran to build explosive devices killing American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The White House also expressed concerns about shipments to Iranian front companies operating in Dubai.

Within days, the UAE president announced a law that allows authorities to “ban or restrict imports, exports or passthrough shipments for reasons of health, safety, environmental concerns, national security or foreign affairs.”

Authorities announced the closure of some companies, but it isn’t clear how thoroughly the law has been enforced. Analysts say Dubai has largely ignored America’s pressure to curb trade with Iran.

By continuing with business as usual, “Dubai has been jeopardizing Abu Dhabi’s relationship with Washington,” said Christopher Davidson, a UAE specialist and a lecturer at the U.K.’s Durham University.

Plus, Dubai’s permissive ways to accommodate Western residents and tourists — by circumventing alcohol restrictions and other rules in the conservative Muslim country — have made the city-state a “liability for the federation, with its behavior,” Davidson said.

So Abu Dhabi has stepped up its pressure, starting with delicate issues Dubai has trouble defending — nudity and excessive booze. Last month, Dubai obliged when Abu Dhabi questioned its neighbor’s Islamic credentials.

Police detained almost 80 people over in a crackdown on public drinking, topless sunbathing and nudity on public beaches. Undercover policemen also rounded up 17 foreign men authorities accused of being gay.

Dubai’s acting police chief vowed to detain all those suspected of acts “deemed offensive, immoral or disrespectful.”

But limiting Iranian business in Dubai is a tougher task, with few rewards for Abu Dhabi, analysts say.

“Neither of them wants to be too close to the U.S. nor too distant from Iran,” said Abdulkhaleq Abdullah, political science professor at Emirates University.

The balancing act associated with trying to accommodate the U.S. and Iran has enabled Dubai and Abu Dhabi to “play good cop, bad cop,” Seznec said.

But he said it was also possible Abu Dhabi doesn’t truly want Dubai to stop being “the main transport hub for Iran.”

The UAE capital looks after the interests of other Gulf states, who fear a U.S. recession and high inflation because their currencies are pegged to the dollar, Seznec said.

“And a bankrupt Iran is simply not in the Gulf’s interest,” he said.