Adla Massoud

A Tale for two Tunisia:Adla Massoud and Anne Applebaum Offer Opposing Views For The Future of the Arab Nation

2011-03-16T09:10:00.004-04:00

Byline Blog / January 19 2011:

This past week all eyes turned towards the north-African nation of Tunisia as the country erupted in violent riots that culminated in the ousting of president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Tunisia’s leader for over 23 years.

In the wake of Ben Ali’s departure, numerous voices from around the world have offered their commentary on the future of Tunisia. Yet the majority of those voices have been male. This past week, two women published columns that stood apart from the crowd: Adla Massoud in the Huffington Post, and Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post.

Massoud, a Lebanese/British journalist, published a column in the Huffington Post titled The Awakening of the Arab World, arguing that the riots in Tunisia are an indication that the educated youth of Arab nations have reached a “boiling point.”

According to Massoud, the social and political circumstances across the Arab world make the region ripe for revolution. Arab nations currently hold the highest unemployment rate in the world, and twenty five percent of youth between the ages of 15 and 29 are without jobs. As a large conglomeration of educated youth enter a world without job prospects and no future, Massoud argues “the Arab people are finally rising up.” Indeed, the revolution in Tunisia is believed to have been sparked by the suicide of a young man who could not find a job and was barred from selling fruit without a permit.

In contrast to Massoud’s hopeful and deterministic rhetoric, Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post published a column warning against placing blind faith in the ability of the Tunisian revolution to usher in a new era of secular, democratic leadership.

Applebaum argues that although the rapid and dramatic developments in Tunisia this past week have been exhilarating, it is important to remember past consequences of similar popular uprisings. Citing the 1979 revolution in Iran, the Orange revolution in Ukraine in 2004, and the 1989 protests in Tiananmen Square, Applebaum warns that street demonstrations often result in continuing violence and a worsening of the political situation.

Although Applebaum, like Massoud, sees the educated youth as the leaders of the revolution, she argues that the developments in Tunisia don’t represent a democratic revolution. Instead, Applebaum argues that we are witnessing a “demographic revolution: the revolt of the frustrated young against their corrupt elders.” Although Applebaum finds hope in the ousting of Ben Ali, she argues that a peaceful and orderly transition of power would have present a far more hopeful prospect for the future of Tunisia.

Whether Massoud’s optimism or Applebaum’s warnings prove more prophetic, it is great see two such distinct, insightful women leading the debate over the future of Tunisia on the op-ed pages. If you have a different opinion or insight on the future of Tunisia and its impact on the rest of the Arab world, take the plunge and voice it!

Interview: Richard Barrett

2011-03-16T08:52:00.001-04:00

By Adla Massoud
Al Jazeera.net/english (January 2010)

The failed Christmas Day airliner attack has resuscitated fears of terrorism in the US. But that fear is no longer focused on Afghanistan, where 68,000 US troops are stationed, or on Iraq, with 120,000 US troops. For now the focus has switched to Yemen.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man accused of trying to blow up the US airliner bound for Detroit, had spent the few months before the attack in Yemen and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has claimed responsibility for the attempted attack.

Four months ago, a suicide bomber from the same group, using a similar explosive, nearly killed a top Saudi counterterrorism minister.

Former British intelligence official, Richard Barrett, the UN's highest ranking official responsible for monitoring the activities of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, tells Al Jazeera, that AQAP is the most dangerous of al-Qaeda's regional offshoots and that its mission is to destabilise the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He recently spoke with Al Jazeera.

Al Jazeera: How strong is AQAP compared with al-Qaeda's presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Richard Barrett: AQAP has until recently focused on targets in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, and may continue to do so. But the attempt to bring down an aircraft over Detroit on December 25 shows that, where the means exist, AQAP may also launch attacks outside the region.

It remains to be seen whether they have the capacity to do so on a continuing basis.

AQAP, however, is like the other al-Qaeda affiliates in that its main objectives are local. Al-Qaeda in Iraq is now a marginal group which is as unlikely as it ever was to have any meaningful influence over the political process there. It still appears to be sectarian and backward looking, apparently now working with ex-Baathists.

Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb has been increasingly pushed to the ungoverned areas of Southern Algeria and Northern Mali and has not managed to get active operational supporters in Europe. Its agenda remains local.

Al-Shabab in Somalia claim allegiance to al-Qaeda, but the al-Qaeda leadership has not recognised this and the fight in Somalia seems to have remained, so far, local and tribal.

The al-Qaeda leadership in the Afghan/Pakistan border area is constrained by military action and is not in a position to plan and mount major attacks.

So my conclusion is that compared to the even weaker state of other parts of al-Qaeda, AQAP is currently probably its strongest part.

You recently said al-Qaeda operatives hiding in Yemen are the most dangerous ...

I do believe they are very dangerous - they are young, they are hotheaded and of course as the Saudi Arabian authorities have being successful in pushing al-Qaeda supporters out of Saudi Arabia, they have tended to go to Yemen and join with Yemenis there who are keen to support their attacks in Saudi Arabia over the border.

And that area there is difficult for the Yemenis to control and the Yemenis of course have a great deal on their hands with the rebellion in the North and the separatist movement in the South, with all the economic and social problems they face in addition.

Has the government of Yemen done enough to combat AQAP? Should the international community have done more to stop the growing threat AQAP poses in Yemen?

The Yemeni authorities have a lot of problems on their plate and it is very difficult to deal with because, of course, they need to have the cooperation of the tribes to deal with it.

But I think the involvement of the international community inside Yemen is a delicate issue that the Yemenis should be fully in control of - so maybe we should have responded more to Yemeni requests for assistance and I see that the US and the European Union have increased their support for Yemen over recent months which suggests perhaps they could have done this earlier.

I am not sure Yemen sees it as such a threat - certainly not as much as the rest of the world does following the December 25 attempt. But I think the international community was very well aware of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the threat it could be posing.

And of course Saudi Arabia in particular was because it was made up of Saudis and their objectives were to attack targets in Saudi Arabia.

Why is Saudi Arabia their main target?

Saudi Arabia is the heartland for al-Qaeda. It has always been a target for them.

I think it is both the Western dependence on Saudi Arabian oil but also the alliance between Saudi Arabia and the West, which is very strong, and I think what the al-Qaeda people see is that if they could attack the economic infrastructure in Saudi Arabia they would be achieving two aims: that is weakening the West but also weakening the authorities in Saudi Arabia which, of course, they don't support at all.

Do you think al-Qaeda remains a global threat?

Al-Qaeda is still very determined that's the thing. I think they are very weakened and they have been unable to mount big operations as they would like to but it's still a threat.

And the leadership in the Afghan-Pakistan border area is still very very keen to link up with people elsewhere in the world who it can persuade and help to mount major attacks.

And what the al-Qaeda leadership would like to do is to establish some sort of control over their operations to make it more strategic rather than these sort of small attacks as they occur at the moment.

Are they succeeding?

I don't think they are. They remain under a great deal of pressure.

There is this threat that the al-Qaeda leadership could link up with people who can travel easily to other countries to commit attacks. And it's difficult for authorities to maintain watch over all these people. Although we have been successful in stopping attacks over the last couple of years, major attacks, perhaps also we've been lucky.

Which enemy should be the greater priority for the US in Afghanistan: the Taliban or al-Qaeda?

I think for the US they've made it clear that al-Qaeda is the greatest enemy and their attacks on the Taliban seem to follow their desire to defeat al-Qaeda. In my opinion I think that's probably right.

Clearly there's a great design in the international community to ensure that al-Qaeda doesn't have any safe havens from which to attack and operate, whether locally or elsewhere.

The question is whether the Taliban would give them these safe havens if they controlled in any sustainable way territory in Afghanistan or even the whole country.

But generally speaking I think that the Afghan Taliban have made it absolutely clear, if we believe them, that they are only interested in the future of Afghanistan and not in disturbing the future of their neighbours or indeed any other country.

Will the inversion of the groups' traditional power dynamic lead to better or worse relations?

I think that the relations are obviously very well established over many years, we have to accept that. And these people are very used to one another and to a certain extent share some objectives - you know what they think is the right sort of government and what they don't like in the sense of outside influences.

But essentially as the Taliban come closer, if they do, to some sort of political accommodation with the rest of the Afghan community, then they will find the weight of al-Qaeda around their necks - or the perception that al-Qaeda remains around their necks - a hindrance and this will probably lead to some sort of tensions and I am hoping that certainly that will be true.

And al-Qaeda has made it very clear that their battle is a global one whereas the Taliban have made it clear their battle is a local one.

I think also we've seen some differences of opinion because al-Qaeda are very much interested in attacking Pakistani troops and Pakistani targets as are the Pakistan Taliban people they work with.

As for the Afghan Taliban, they have always made it clear that that's not their objective, that they believe the battle is against foreign forces and the Karzai government in Afghanistan and that it has nothing to do with the Pakistani forces or army.

The Saudi Arabian government maintains that the Taliban would become moderate in due course. Do you agree?

I think what the Taliban will become is perhaps more sophisticated and more practiced in government.

I think that when they were running the country before - or large parts of it before - I don't think they were very sophisticated and I think were still very much in a learning stage and really in a developmental stage and they weren't quite clear what their policies should be. I hope they learn from that.

The trouble to me is that now for many many years - for over a generation - the Afghan people have known nothing but conflict and it will be very difficult for everybody to settle down in a sort of peaceful, civilian type government.

Is capturing Osama bin Laden the key to defeating al-Qaeda?

I am not sure it's the key to defeating al-Qaeda, I am not even sure it will make a big difference to al-Qaeda.

Certainly Osama bin laden has remained an inspirational character though I don't think he has much operational control over what al-Qaeda does.

Whether he was imprisoned, dead, hiding in those remote areas in Pakistan/Afghanistan, I am not sure what difference it will make.

What we have to do is to ensure that the global community understands that what al-Qaeda offers is purely destructive, negative, a hopeless philosophy and if we want progress, security and prosperity then the last people we should be looking to to help us is al-Qaeda.

They offer nothing but further disadvantage.

And it's making that clear to people that al-Qaeda lack any relevance to life today and they lack any credibility as well I think that's the main thing - that we shall do whether Osama bin Laden is captured or not.

Iran's Slow Revolution

2011-03-16T08:38:00.000-04:00

By Adla Massoud
Al Jazeera.net/english (December 2009)

Six months after Iran's disputed presidential election triggered widespread demonstrations, the country's pro-democracy movement is as strong as ever, experts say.

As this week's protests show, opponents of Iran's regime have taken to using officially sanctioned demonstrations to turn out in large numbers and publicise their message.

But do not expect another revolution.

"This is a civil rights movement working through self-propelling acts of civil disobedience," Hamid Dabashi, a professor of Iranian studies at Columbia University, says. "It will change the very political language of the region."

Asef Bayat, a sociologist and Middle East expert, agrees. Speaking at a panel discussion last week, he argued that Iranian society is beginning to shed its revolutionary tendencies.

"Iranians once saw liberation as simply overthrowing an unjust shah, without much thought as to what would come next," he said. "Thirty years later, that definition has grown to include concepts of individual civil liberties. This has led to a far more mature civil society, that seeks change in increments, not explosive revolution."

Forged in opposition

The so-called 'Green Movement' was formed after hundreds of thousands of supporters of Mir Hussein Mousavi, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's main rival in the presidential elections, took to the streets to protest the result of the poll.

They believed that Ahmadinejad had orchestrated a massive campaign of vote-rigging that returned him to power unfairly. The demonstrations were met with a brutal crackdown, sanctioned by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader.

Eventually the protests died down and the 'Green Revolution' lost its news value. The Iranian opposition disappeared from the mainstream media and went back underground, manifesting itself in postings on Facebook and Twitter and in snippets of mobile phone video posted to Youtube.

While it may not be visible, some believe it is effective. Behzad Yaghmaian, an Iranian author living in the US, says that a more politically mature and multi-layered movement is emerging, and that its strength derives in large part from its non-violent character.

Even Iranian children are setting an example, he says, recounting the story of a 12-year-old student who refused to step on an American flag before entering the classroom. "People of another country love this flag. Why should I disrespect them?" she asked her teacher.

Yaghmaian believes the grassroots movement has bypassed the limited political demands of Mousavi and other reformist leaders and has become a more profound movement fighting for human rights. There is, he says, little desire to work within the framework of a theocratic political regime.

Taking risks

For the first time in 30 years, people on the streets of Iran are openly rejecting the constitution of the Islamic Republic and demanding a secular republic.

"There's a call for political secularism emerging in Iran, a call that is coming out of the movement itself," he says.

In making that call, the demonstrators are taking a risk. Iranians are well aware of the regime's willingness to use force against them, and as a result, much of the political organising is done out of view of the authorities.

"They cannot have a fully fledged organised structured movement in the way that you have in Western countries, because they would easily be the target of appraisal and repression," Asef Bayat explains.

Instead, Iran's Green Movement operates through loose networks of friends, family, and colleagues, says Yaghmaian. The risks are enormous.

In the first half of 2009 alone, there were 196 executions in Iran. Former officials, intellectuals and journalists have received long prison sentences after brief televised trials and torture by the authorities is commonplace.

"The human rights situation has deteriorated considerably," says Hadi Ghaemi, a spokesman for the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran. "Capital punishment is on the rise and execution sentences for political prisoners has resumed. Torture and even rape of detainees have taken place."

Despites this, Ghaemi believes nothing will deter Iran's burgeoning civil rights movement. He says: "It will seize every opportunity to display its resilience."

Out of Beirut

2010-02-14T18:05:00.000-05:00

By Adla Massoud
Al Jazeera.net / July 19 2006

When Lebanon's 15-year civil war ended in 1990, we all hoped that the nation had finally transformed itself from a byword for urban violence into the "Ibiza" of the Middle East.

Beirut was attracting hordes of tourists, its land values were rocketing and its citizens were relishing the prospect of long overdue wealth.

As a Lebanese expat, Beirut has always been my summer destination. But by my second week there, I was sadly planning my exit strategy as Israel retaliated with waves of air and sea attacks - bombs and missiles after Hezbollah killed eight Israel soldiers and captured another two.

I spent the first two days hoping that the situation would improve. I got phone calls from people in south Lebanon saying that their power was out and that Israeli jets were swooping overhead.

The question everyone was asking: what will happen next? What do we do if Israel really hits Beirut? Do we stay, or go?

Day four

By Saturday, our house started shaking under the increasing air raids. Israel had vowed to take Lebanon "back a good 20 years".

My hopes for a ceasefire began to wither away.

I was stranded with my brother and his wife in Beirut with 10 children under the age of seven â€“ Greek, French, British and American.

I checked with the American and British embassies about possible evacuation plans. They responded calmly: Do not attempt to travel and certainly not to Syria.

It was not what I wanted to hear. Many Beirutis had evacuation plans. They all had small bags packed and were ready to move to the mountains.

But with Israeli warships attacking ports and Beirut's airport, we were virtually cut off from the outside world.

If we wanted to take the Syrian route, then we would have to take back roads through the high mountain passes, or head north up the coast road towards the Syrian city of Homs. But if Israel attacked Syria, we would have nowhere to go.

Open war

When Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah declared an "open war", we decided to flee from Beirut on a small bus with 10 kids in tow. It was now a make or break opportunity especially after Israeli air strikes hit the Beirut - Damascus highway.

Thirty minutes after our departure, the IDF began attacking our route to the border. We heard and saw the bombings. The older children cried out of fear, but the younger ones did not seem to understand what was happening.

My heart was breaking at the thought of possibly not being able to get these children back to their parents, some of whom were out of Lebanon at the time. Who can explain a mother's anguish during these terrible times?

Finally we reached the Syrian border.

Border chaos

At the border post, the atmosphere was relatively calm, but people seemed dazed.

There were hundreds of bus loads of Lebanese and foreign refugees. Around them, people crossed the border into Syria carrying their belongings in Hessian sacks on their backs.

A bus ticket from Lebanon to Syria shot up from $15 to about $200. Taxis were charging upward of $700 per person for the four-to-six-hour trip.

We spent five hours at Syrian customs in a small room with hundreds of people seeking an entry visa. Syrian authorities were clearly unprepared for such large numbers of refugees. They sent us from one room to another.

Meanwhile, the children who were waiting in the bus grew frustrated. There was no more water nor food and no shop nearby to buy any. We had to try and pacify them while trying to find a way.

We were then told that the Syrian government had instructed all official agencies to facilitate entry procedures at the borders for Lebanese nationals. So we used our Lebanese passports instead of the British, French and Greek ones. Within 30 minutes our 13 visas were issued.

But many Americans, British, German and French tourists were still waiting to get theirs. Some gave up, but others were relentless.

Syrian support

Leaving them, we crossed the border and drove to Lattakia where our plane to London was waiting. Syria's support for Hezbollah was clearly evident: Picture posters of Bashar al-Assad and Hassan Nasrallah hung side by side.

In the airport, with 10 exhausted children screaming for food and water, Syrian television reporters besieged us with questions and cameras: "what were you doing in Lebanon?" "were you on a holiday?" "do you always come to Syria?

We scrambled onto the plane, heartbroken, dishevelled and shocked by what has become of Lebanon.

Adla Massoud, a regular contributor to Aljazeera.net, was vacationing with her two children in Beirut when hostilities broke out between Hezbollah and Israel.

Author says Iraq worse than reported

2010-02-14T17:53:00.000-05:00

By Adla Massoud
Al Jazeera.net / July 6 2006

The author of In the Belly of the Green Bird tells Aljazeera.net that the conflict in Iraq is far more terrible than reported and could spill over and threaten the entire Middle East.

Nir Rosen - who speaks Arabic and has Middle Eastern looks - went to Iraq in April 2003, just days after Baghdad fell. Entering mosques and tribal meeting halls, and afforded access to fighters' secret meetings and Iraqi homes, he documented the deadly behind-the-scenes manoeuvring in the post-Saddam power vacuum.

He is also a fellow at the New America Foundation.

Aljazeera.net: Let's start with the title of your book. What is the green bird?

Rosen: When I was in Falluja, and other parts of Iraq where the resistance was very strong, you would often hear this quote in mosques, or see it in resistance propaganda - that the martyrs were in paradise.

You often saw or heard the statement that the martyrs die with a smile on their faces, die with smelling sweet and the martyrs went to paradise in the bellies of the green bird.

To write your book, you gained access to both Sunni and Shia resistance more than any other American reporter. How did you do that?

I have a very good smile (he laughs). I definitely had more access than many other people. Some of it was because I am Middle Eastern; my father is Iranian.I looked like everybody else which I think is an important advantage because you get to places more easily. People don't notice you.

I think it's mainly having the right friends. Friends from the right Sunni tribes, friends from the right Shia neighbourhoods who could introduce me to the right people. You need somebody from the right tribe, from the right neighbourhood, from the right sect. More and more, that's what determines whether you can survive.

Has al-Zarqawi's death impacted the insurgency?

I think it's insignificant. I don't think he was so important in the first place. If anything, he was sort of an advertisement. He came into Iraq tokill infidels and the Shia, become a martyr and go to paradise. He
succeeded.The Americans created Zarqawi, sort of the Zarqawi myth. Right at the beginning, they refused to accept the fact that the Iraqis had liberated or supported popular resistance so they had to blame
everything around foreign fighters for the sake of the American [public].

So it seemed for a while like every suicide car bombs was been blamed on Zarqawi. And I just think that created a myth throughout the Arab world. It only helped his cause.

Osama Bin laden recently warned in an internet message Iraqi Shia of retaliation if they continued to attack Sunnis. How seriously should we take his warning?

I don't think Osama bin laden matters much either. First of all, Iraqi Shia are being killed every day anyway.
Every day by the end of 2003, they were being slaughtered on the streets by the resistance and of course by Zarqawi. But I don't think Osama bin laden commands any fighters. He is hiding in some cave somewhere in Pakistan issuing these statements, trying to sound important but he is not the leader of anybody anymore. So it's kind of ridiculous.

I didn't see anyone in Iraq take Osama bin laden seriously. It's definitely true that Shia are resented because they are perceived as the beneficiaries of the occupation. And in many ways, they are in charge now; they control Iraq so everything has been reversed.

In a recent article, you wrote "The occupation has been one vast extended crime against the Iraqi people and most of it has occurred unnoticed by the American people and the media". Can you explain?

Well Abu Ghraib, Haditha, these are the kind of things that get attention. These are only two incidents so they make them seem like the crimes are exceptions. In fact the occupation is a daily crime, it is little Abu Ghraibs, little Hadithas, being forced to do what the Americans tell you to do.

Having American machine guns pointed at you everywhere, having American security convoys shoot at you when you're off the streets, having American tanks block off your roads, American concrete barriers block off your city, American helicopters fly over your house, American soldiers break into your house and raids.

So many little acts and so many innocent Iraqis killed or arrested or humiliated or terrified. Probably hundreds of thousands have been traumatised by this, especially children. I was "embedded" for two weeks of my entire time in Iraq but for me that was the most traumatic experience that I had in Iraq.

Normally, if I'm on the streets and I see someone pushing an old lady or bullying a child, I'd want to interfere. But here I was with soldiers and they were doing the same thing with Iraqis. I would just stand there and watch and not get involved. And Iraqis looking at me thinking I was some Iraqi collaborator and it made me feel even worse.

In a recent Washington post/ABC News poll, nearly half of all Americans support a timetable for withdrawal. Do you support a withdrawal?

I supported a withdrawal certainly until 2005. In my articles, I was saying that an American withdrawal would prevent a civil war from happening and would force Sunnis and Shia to step up and take responsibility and to co-operate. And it would allow Sunnis to participate in the government.

But now that I think the civil war is sort of open and intense, I don't think an American withdrawal would make much difference and it's possible that an American withdrawal would actually make things worse
because there will be nobody patrolling the borders and would allow even more foreign fighters to come into the Sunni areas.

It would allow greater intervention from Iraq's neighbours which will only increase the civil war. I think the Americans should leave. The Americans shouldn't be here occupying Iraq and killing Iraqis but an American withdrawal wouldn't make things better at this point because of the civil war.

In your book, you say that Iraq has been in a state of civil war shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein's government. How bleak is the future of Iraq?

It's more difficult for me to feel more optimistic because as a journalist on the ground you see the bloodshed every day. You hear about people getting killed, people telling you about their neighbours getting killed; it seems like short-term there is no hope because I think things still have to get much worse before they might getbetter. The process of ethnic cleansing is only beginning.

I think all mixed areas of Iraq are going to be unmixed, are going to be cleansed like Bosnia before this ends. So there's still a lot left to go. I think Sunnis and Shia hatred at this point in Iraq are so intense that they are beyond the point of reconciliation and the fact that the Shia are so confident because they control the army and the police. I think you're going to see sectarianism spreading to the whole region.

Do you think Iraq should be split into three semi-autonomous provinces?

The Kurds certainly want independence. They don't feel Iraqi, they don't speak Arabic, they don't want to belong to Iraq. When you ask them about the Iraqi flag, they tell you it is a symbol of their pain. I've never heard a Kurd express any desire to belong to Iraq. And they have virtual independence anyway so it's only a
question of time for the Kurds.

But regarding the rest of Iraq, it's much more complicated because the Sunnis don't want to have some form autonomous province. They want all of Iraq just like the Shia want all of Iraq.

Everybody wants Baghdad. Sunnis of course want the oil and the Sunnis are so mixed that even if you divide it into autonomous provinces what would you do with Baghdad and Kirkuk? It would just be as bloody
because most of the bloodshed is happening in mixed areas. So there's no solution at this point I think.

How will the war in Iraq impact the Middle East in the long term?

The idea of a nation might be less important because you have Sunni Arab tribes in Iraq who have relatives in Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia and for them borders were never an issue in the first place.

Once the people start really being victimised by the Shia, you'll see their relatives coming in larger numbers to give them more support.I just don't believe that the Arab world is prepared to tolerate an aggressive Shia Iraq. We've heard statements from Saudi leaders, Jordanians and even from [Egyptian President Hosni} Mubarak warning about the Shia threat. I don't think you will see a Shia Iraq, the situation is only going to get worse.

How has the war in Iraq affected you personally?

My journalistic career began at the age of 26 when I got to Iraq. I'd never been a journalist before. So everything I've learned in the past three years was from Iraq. In some sense, it has made me an angry person. When I go back to the United States, I feel angry because people don't know how terrible the situation is.

Is the media to blame?

A little bit. They are too slow to expose America's crimes and they still are. I mean I was embedded for two weeks and I saw so many horrible things happen. There are journalists who have been embedded
for months, for much of the occupation on and off, and they must have seen things much worse than what I saw.

And not to write about them and glorify the hometown heroes from the US is in itself collaborating with the crime.

Lebanon divided over Hezbollah raid

2010-02-14T17:38:00.001-05:00

By Adla Massoud in Beirut
Al Jazeera.net / July 2006

With aerial bombardment and a naval and land blockade of Lebanon intensifying, many Lebanese are divided over Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers.

Some politicians have expressed doubt about or condemned Hezbollah's cross-border raid on Wednesday.

Michel Aoun, a member of parliament who leads the Free Patriotic Movement, called the raid a "pure military action" but also condemned Israel's retaliatory attacks on civilian targets.

"The priority now is to stop military operations and move towards a solution through negotiations," Aoun, a former general who returned from exile last year, told Aljazeera.net.

Aoun, a Maronite Christian leader, signed an understanding with Hezbollah in February after arguing that the Islamist group should be integrated into political reforms in Lebanon.

Blame game

Walid Jumblatt, a Druze leader who opposed Aoun's arrangement with Hezbollah, called the group's raid an "outrageous" way to drag the country into war and said it was symptomatic of regional power-plays.

Iran and Syria are unfortunately using Lebanon as their proxy, and this is unacceptable," he said.

Jumblatt, who heads the Progressive Socialist Party, has since the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri demanded an end to Syrian involvement in national affairs and for the Islamist Hezbollah movement to lay down its arms.

But Hezbollah officials say the only way out is through indirect negotiations.

Sayyed Ibrahim Moussawi, editor of the English service of Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV, blamed Israel for refusing to "limit any further escalations of aggression ... and starting a military aggression against Lebanon.

Angry, fearful memories

Once known as the Paris of the Middle East, Beirut was a popular tourist destination in the 1960s and 1970s.

After the civil war and the Israeli invasion of 1982, Lebanon's fortunes faded until a decade ago when the guns fell silent and foreign investment and tourism returned to the country.

But the recent bombings and talk of war have brought back painful memories.

"This brings back too many bad memories" says Hawa Shehadi, a 70-year-old grandmother."Lebanon will never know peace."

Kamil Makdissi, a taxi driver, says: "I feel sad about Lebanon being bombed. Deep down I am happy that Israel is feeling at least 5% of what we're going through."

Many in Beirut are also angry.

Ordinary Lebanese opposed to Hezbollah are incensed by the attack they knew from experience would invite Israeli reprisals.

"This whole saga has taken me back to my childhood and it's not a good feeling at all. I just want to get out," says Zina Bekdache, 38, who is in Beirut for her annual holiday.

"They seem to think that they run the country," says Walid Chahine, a 50-year-old engineer. "All the credibility Hezbollah had gained domestically over the years they have thrown away."

Despite the anger, few Lebanese feel they can openly oppose Hezbollah while their country is under bombardment.

Wide gulf

Yet the gulf is clear between Lebanese Shia - the largest religious community in the country - and those opposed to the raid.

Dalia Salaam, a Lebanese Middle East analyst, says, "Hezbollah is currently the only political party in Lebanon fighting to save the country."

"The US and Europe should ask Israel to restrain itself. After all, no one, not even President George Bush or the Israeli government, can afford to escalate the situation."

But Ramzi Salha, a travel agent, says: "Whatever the agenda of Hezbollah is, it is not necessarily the agenda of the Lebanese people.

"They have not been designated by the Lebanese people to decide what is best for the country."

With the 22-year Israeli occupation over, many Lebanese say it is time for Hezbollah to lay down its weapons as demanded by UN Security Council resolution 1559.

Few are suggesting a return to war is coming, but Hezbollah's rivals are increasingly complaining that the only Lebanese group that was allowed to keep its weapons after the civil war has become more powerful than the state.

Lebanon's New Electoral Law Will Impact Christians

2010-02-14T17:32:00.000-05:00

By ADLA MASSOUD, Middle East Times

Oct 14, 2008 - 9:07:33 AM

BEIRUT -- Lebanon's new electoral law could define the role of the country's Christian electorate and directly impact the ongoing Sunni-Shia power struggle, experts say.

"The Christians can flip the balance one way or another. Because the Shiites are attached to Iran and Syria and the Sunnis to Saudi Arabia, so as to lessen the attachments, the Christians can balance it out in the national interest of the country," said former Lebanese ambassador to Washington, Abdullah Bouhabib.

Adoption of the new election law – which is still pending approval of parliament – is the final element of the Qatari-mediated deal between rival pro- and anti-Syrian factions in Lebanon after prolonged wrangling brought the country to the brink of civil war.

The new law overrides the standing 1960 electoral act and mandates the redrawing of electoral boundaries into smaller voting districts – a major concession to the opposition which they believe will entitle a bigger representation for the Christian community.

Christian voters will have diverse alternatives to choose from: first, the March 14 camp, the Christian Phalangists and the Lebanese Forces, led by Amin Gemayel and Samir Geagea respectively who joined forces with the largely anti-Syrian movement headed by Saad Hariri, son of slain former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt.

Hezbollah made the Druze community as a whole their target during their May campaign. Jumblatt reinforced his alliance with rival Druze leader Talal Arslan during and after the Hezbollah attacks on their community. Arslan is a friend and supporter of the Syrian regime and the opposition.

At the other end of the spectrum is the pro-Syria opposition, consisting of Michel Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), Suleiman Franjieh's Marada movement and Hezbollah. And there is also the soon to be announced candidates affiliated with the new president, General Michel Suleiman.

Marada leader Suleiman Franjieh said the new election law is the beginning of the rights of the Christians:

"We now need our deputies to be elected by the Christians themselves."

Inexplicable alliances have long been a tradition of Lebanese politics, defined by short-sighted tactical partnerships rooted in the intense rivalry of opposing parties, communities and political families.

Such alliances have played a key role in the struggle for power among the various Christian factions.

Lebanon's former President Amin Gemayel, head of the Christian Phalangist Party and one of the stalwarts of the anti-Syrian coalition believes the outcome of the elections will depend mainly on political alliances.

"The political map is going to change in 2009. There will be a big reshuffling."

The Doha Accord situates the opposition today as a significant minority in the cabinet with one third of the seats. Should the opposition win in the 2009 parliamentary elections, the opposition will become the ruling majority.

According to Nadim Shehadi, Lebanon expert at the London-based Chatham House, the real electoral battle will be in seven constituencies: Metn, Zahle, Beirut, Koura, Saida, Batroun, West Bekaa.

"Nineteen out of the 26 constituencies are considered 'safe' with predictable results. It is in the other seven, mainly in the Christian dominated constituencies, that will determine the next parliamentary majority."

Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun, is currently the frontrunner in the Christian dominated areas, elections expert Kamal Feghali says.

The former general who won one-third of the popular vote in the 2005 parliamentary elections, claims the support of 50 percent of Lebanon's Christians, and "looks set to win the majority of the Christian votes in 2009" he added.

But Aoun's alliance with Hezbollah has many Christians worried about their future.

Carlos Edde, leader of Lebanon's National Bloc, an independent party formerly part of the majority movement, believes Aoun's alliance with Hezbollah, Syria and Iran will be the main factor for the end of "a Lebanon where the Christian community will have a substantial influence in the political decision making and it will be the last phase in which Westernized political institutions and culture will play an important role in this country."

Edde said: "After the takeover of Beirut by Hezbollah, it is unfortunate that many Christians prefer to side with the strongest, without considering the long-term effect on the society they are living in."

"One thing is for sure, if one considers the many factors that led to the failure of the Cedar Revolution of 2005, I would single out by far the defection of General Aoun to the pro-Syrian side," he added.

In fact, Aoun took the Christian community by surprise when he allied himself with Hezbollah, backed by Syria and Iran, shortly after he returned to Lebanon from a 15-year exile in France.

During his exile, he had repeatedly opposed the Syrian presence in his country and returned home only once Damascus withdrew its troops following a 29-year presence and as a result of domestic and international pressure in the aftermath of Hariri's assassination in February 2005.

"There has always been a trend or current amongst the Maronites which is anti-clerical and anti-feudal and I think Michel Aoun represents this" said Shehadi.

In an interview at his home in East Beirut, MP Samir Franjieh, a breakaway leftist member of the powerful far-right Franjieh clan led by Suleiman Franjieh in northern Lebanon, said the Christian pro-Hezbollah opposition unfortunately brought the Christian community back to where it was before 1990, ensnared by inter-Christian power struggles.

"What is disturbing is that they [the opposition] did not take Lebanese or Muslim positions but an Iranian one. They actually stood against their own democratic beliefs."

Gemayel concurred that Aoun's alliance with Hezbollah is dangerous for Lebanon, particularly the Christian interests, since Hezbollah works to "achieve the Iranian strategic scheme in the Middle East."

Defending their alliance, former Interior Minister Suleiman Franjieh said:

"The Shiites came and said they were prepared to stand by us. They stood by us in Doha and through all the tricky times. It's an alliance that has helped the Christian community. But it's not an alliance against the Sunnis. The Sunnis would be wrong to think that. It's an alliance of minorities that should help bring more balance to the country."

Bouhabib, who heads the independent Issam Fares Center think tank, said the agreement between Aoun and Nasrallah brought Hezbollah into the mainstream of Lebanese politics, rather than taking the FPM leader to the fringes.

"Imagine Aoun did not ally himself with Hezbollah, then the Shiites would be cornered and when the tiger is cornered, he attacks. So this agreement between Aoun and Hezbollah gradually convinced Hezbollah that they should play the political game in Lebanon. And this is in the interest of everybody not only of the Shiites." Aoun insists he has not entered into an alliance with Hezbollah, rather he has signed an MOU – or message of understanding.

Many Christians are still hoping that the disengagement of Syria from Lebanon following Rafiq Hariri's murder would signal the political revitalization of the community.

"The real test" said Arz al-Murr, founder of Al-Nashra, a Beirut-based news Web site, "are the 2009 elections."

Oil may fuel Sino-US Conflict

2010-02-14T17:25:00.000-05:00

By Adla Massoud
Al Jazeera.net / June 29 2006

China's quest for oil in the Middle East is threatening US energy and security interests in the region and increasing the risk of a conflict between both nations, analysts say. Flynt Leverett, senior fellow at the New York-based Saban Centre for Middle East Policy, told Aljazeera.net: "There's a force of increasing tensions in the Sino-American relationship and if you carry that trend out long enough, you do begin to run a more serious threat."

As the dominant geopolitical power in the Middle East and the Arabian Gulf, America's main concern is not only the acquisition of cheap fossil fuel but also the growing involvement of China's energy sector in a number of ''problem" states such as Iran, Sudan and lately, Syria. George Bush, the US president, recently told the American public that "addiction to oil is a matter of national security concerns".

"Some of the nations we rely on for oil have unstable governments, or agendas that are hostile to the United States. These countries know we need their oil, and that reduces our influence, our ability to keep the peace in some areas."

Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA and national security council Middle East analyst, told Aljazeera.net that just as the US oil needs had helped to keep dictatorships in power in the past, China was buying into oil in places where those purchases supported governments of countries seen as hostile to the West. "It can be very detrimental to the US, particularly if the Chinese were to adopt the role that the Soviets did during the Cold War, supporting whichever state opposed the United States," he added.

Investing in Sudan

China has invested more than $8 billion in Sudan, which now supplies over 7% of the Asian giant's oil. It has also invested another $70 billion into Iran's oil and gas industry, which meets 11% of its energy needs. In return, Beijing offers powerful incentives for these countries' energy resources: Economic and military aid, access to Chinese markets, and support at the United Nations where Beijing wields veto power at the Security Council.

China has also shown willingness to oppose US policies as it did in 2004 when it threatened to veto a US proposed resolution to impose sanctions on Sudan, or when it signalled resistance to any UN measure that would include the threat of military action against Iran. Analysts say China's need for oil has been a major factor in Beijing's refusal to support stronger action against those countries and that it has an interest in seeking peace in the Gulf to ensure the security of its growing energy investments.

"The US' argument to China, which the Chinese recognise, is that Iran with nuclear weapons would be very destabilising to the region and that could jeopardise China's number one priority in the region which is the flow of cheap oil," Pollack said.

As the world's third largest oil consumer, China relies heavily on the Middle East, which provides about 45% of its total oil imports, with Saudi Arabia accounting for about 17%.

Growing industrialisation

While China still consumes far less oil than the United States, increased production in industries such as steel, aluminium, and cement have driven up its energy consumption and oil prices. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), Chinese oil imports will rise more than six times between 2002 and 2030, from 1.7 to nearly 11 million barrels per day. In other words, China's oil imports will rise by an amount nearly equal to Saudi Arabia's total current oil production capacity.

Meanwhile, Middle Eastern energy producers are looking to China as an alternative to US hegemony in the region. "I think there are a lot of Arab states in the region who are looking to China not just as a potential economic partner, but also as a potential political counterweight to the US. The more they bring the Chinese into the region and the less they will have to do what the US tells them to," Pollack said.

Even the staunchly anti-communist Saudis - whose oilfields were developed by US companies - is cultivating China as a consumer of its oil and gas to hedge against further deterioration in US-Saudi diplomatic relations. Said Pollack: "In the aftermath of 9/11, if you look at the anti-Saudi backlash in the US, the Saudis had to take seriously the possibilities that their strategic partnership with the United States might deteriorate. Fundamentally they needed an alternative."

Sino-Saudi ties boosted

In late April, Hu Jintao, the Chinese president, flew to Saudi Arabia for talks with Saudi Aramco, the world's largest oil producer. The visit marked the latest episode in a continuing Chinese effort to ensure access to Saudi Arabia's 9.5 million barrels per day of oil production. That visit, coming just after meetings between Hu and George Bush, the US president, was closely monitored in Washington.

Ted Galen Carpenter, vice-president for defence and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, told Aljazeera.net that "the Saudis regard China now as a very important customer for oil and will be increasingly important in the coming decades".

"I don't think that's a terribly smart thing for US interests. The US has made an economic and political competitor again on the global scene which is something we've really not had since the end of the Cold War in 1990," Carpenter, who is also the author of the book America's Coming War with China, said.

China-US rivalry

The IEA predicts that by 2015, 70% of China's oil imports will come from the Middle East. And more than half of its oil will have to transit the Malacca Straits, one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, located between Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. The US navy controls the sea lines of communication (SLOC) or primary maritime routes, in all the major energy transit junctions, including the Straits of Hormuz, the Malacca Straits and the Southeast Asian sea lanes.

US analysts say there is an expectation among Chinese strategists that the US will use its naval leverage to disrupt its energy imports should any conflict over the status of Taiwan arise. The Chinese are reinforcing their navy, concerned with the insecurity of the maritime routes upon which almost all of China's energy imports travel. But "it will not be a threat to the US unless China has a very large modern and capable navy which it has not remotely done to this point", Carpenter said.

Hoping to avert a new war of the Pacific, Beijing is developing alternative oil delivery routes that are meant to avoid US naval control. China has bankrolled more than 80% of a $248 million project to develop a deep-sea port in Gwadar, Pakistan. This would lessen its reliance on sea routes by allowing oil to be transported overland through Pakistan to western China. China also recently opened a 1000-km link carrying 190,000 barrels per day of Kazakh oil, providing its first direct access to potentially rich central Asian fields.

Retaliation "Monstrous and Disproportionate"

2010-02-14T17:18:00.001-05:00

By Adla Massoud in Beirut
Al Jazeera.net / July 23 2006

Lebanon's social affairs minister is appalled by what she sees as the "monstrous and disproportionate retaliation" of the Israeli military against her country.

But Nayla Moawad, the Christian Lebanese widow of Rene Moawad, a former president who was assassinated just days after taking office in 1989, also lambasted Hezbollah's decision to capture Israeli soldiers, saying it pushed Lebanon into a war its people never wanted. Interview by Adla Massoud.

Aljazeera.net: Hezbollah claims its actions aim to defend the interests of the Lebanese people. Do you support such a view?

Nayla Moawad: I think that we have to define our interests together and only the Lebanese government - where Hezbollah is a partner - and representatives in parliament, who have been elected by all the Lebanese people - only the government can decide for peace or war.

Hezbollah initiated the attack without the knowledge of the Lebanese government. How can that be?

That's why we clearly stated that we did not approve of the operation and we did not know about the operation and we did not adopt or support this operation.

We have reiterated numerous times very clearly that the Lebanese government is the only Lebanese entity that should decide whether there should be peace or war.

Only the Lebanese army and the Lebanese security forces have the right to be armed. And only the Lebanese people represented by their government can decide when and how to use these arms.

But many blame the war on the Lebanese government for not having disarmed Hezbollah in the first place as required by UN resolution 1559. Do you agree?

We never pretended that we could disarm Hezbollah.

We were elected by a big majority of the Lebanese people who participated with the March 14 [reformist] group.

We also obtained the support of the international community after the assassination of the late prime minister Rafiq Hariri.

On the contrary, sovereignty and independence could be achieved with the participation of Hezbollah in the government, in the decision-making, and that little by little they would understand that only strong state institutions would represent an important sectarian community in Lebanon.

Israel has called for the Lebanese government to come down and take control of the southern border, the border with Israel. Do you believe your government is strong enough to do it?

I think the government cannot go to the status quo ante [bellum] and now we are asking for a ceasefire and we certainly have to take strong measures because all the problems are now on the table and we have to take responsible decisions supported by the Lebanese people.

What of a ceasefire? Do you think an international peace force will help?

It's one of the suggestions that are being studied by Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora who is in charge of leading all negotiations and who will choose which suggestions given by the UN Security Council we could discuss and decide all together to adopt.

Relief agencies have warned of an impending humanitarian crisis. What is the government planning to do?

It's not only a humanitarian crisis. It's a humanitarian disaster. And the government has put in charge the committee for relief to organise all relief effort under the monitoring of the ministry of social affairs and with the help of NGOs and the civil society.

Prime Minister Fouad Siniora criticised the world for not stopping the Israeli offensive. Do you agree?

I agree, especially when you are living this dramatic war and this very disproportionate Israeli retaliation. Regarding the Hezbollah operation - the capture of two Israeli soldiers - that started before the Israeli attacks, I affirm again that we did not want it and did not know about it.

Certainly, we are looking first to get a ceasefire and simultaneously asking the international community to help us with humanitarian aid because Lebanon is under siege and blockaded by land, sea and air.

And we are also asking for humanitarian aid within Lebanon because many of the villages on the southeast of the Lebanese territories are totally cut from other areas and are cut from each other and we are having small dreadful cases that are being lived by the people.

Do you think Hezbollah is gaining support due to Israel's response?

What I can tell you is whatever our political opinion is regarding the Hezbollah operation that has started this war and whatever differences of opinion we might have with Hezbollah, we did not agree with some of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah's statements during his interview earlier with Aljazeera.

He said first of all that they are fighting not only to defend Lebanon but they are fighting for the whole Arab region.

He also said the war will continue whether the Lebanese people like it or not.

We strongly disapprove of this and do not support such statements. We are single-handedly facing a humanitarian disaster that has befallen us because of the war and most of all because of the monstrous Israeli retaliation.

Originally Published on Aljazeera.net: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/73269661-A536-4EE8-A50D-F8472C6E772E.htm

Analyst says bin Laden 'desperate'

2010-02-14T17:09:00.001-05:00

By Adla Massoud
Al Jazeera.net / April 24 2006

In The Far Enemy: Why Jihad Went Global, his latest book on al-Qaeda, Middle East analyst Fawaz Gerges says that by the mid-1990s, the jihadi movement was nearly a spent force, having been ruthlessly repressed by "the near enemy" - Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

To revive their flagging movement, al-Qaeda decided to take its fight to the West, "the far enemy", but this caused a rift with other militant movements who feared US military power would ultimately destroy them.

On Sunday, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden released an audio tape accusing the West of mounting a "Crusader war" on Muslim nations.

Gerges, who holds the Christian Johnson Chair in International Affairs and Middle Eastern Studies at New York's Sarah Lawrence University, believes bin Laden may be growing desperate.

Aljazeera.net: What are we to understand from Osama bin Laden's message about a crusader war against Muslims?

Fawaz Gerges: Bin Laden is desperately trying to capitalise on America's and the West's woes in Iraq and elsewhere to convince young Muslims that the West is waging a "crusader war on Islam", and that they should resist the new imperial crusade militarily.

For bin Laden, the current struggle is more than political or economic; it is existential and civilisational. His mission, as he clearly states, is to incite young Muslims and remind them of the stakes involved in this global conflict.

He sounds deeply disappointed that his messages have fallen on deaf ears. The caravan of jihad has left him behind, and it is moving in a dramatically different direction than he had expected. He feels an urgent need to remind his followers and the Muslim community that he is still alive, that he exists.

But the truth is that there are few takers for his civilisational war. Neither Iraqis nor Palestinians are willing to wage a war on bin Laden's behalf; nor do they subscribe to his vision. They have much more limited goals than bin Laden's ambitious and convoluted rhetoric.

In your book you state that the 9/11 attacks were bin Laden's idea but that other jihadi leaders disagreed with him. Why did they remain silent?

9/11 was carried out by a tiny faction - al-Qaeda - which represents a minority within the jihadi movement and its strategies have been vehemently criticised and opposed by religious nationalists. They preferred to concentrate on changing the Muslim world rather than taking the fight global.

The majority of lieutenants decided to go their own ways because they disagreed with the merger between the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Ayman al-Zawahiri's organisation, and al-Qaeda.

Some of them in internal correspondence wrote to al-Zawahiri and said "listen we'll go on our own way but we will never air our dirty laundry in public, we will never try to discredit you".

I think this is a kind of a secret universe, a universe that does not function according to rational means. They have a deep sense of loyalty and brotherhood towards each other.

Why did bin Laden and al-Qaeda decide to focus on the West?

The catalyst that turned bin laden against the far enemy (The Christian West) was the American military intervention in the Gulf war in 1991 and the permanent stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia.

You begin your book by critiquing the 9/11 Commission report and stating that the United States sees the jihadi movement as monolithic.

I think the 9/11 Commission report focused on the criminal investigation. It presented a partial portrait of how the 9/11 conspiracy unfolded: Trying to piece together the various threads of the plot such as when the orders were given, who gave them, who were the leading conspirators behind the plot. I think the Americans wanted to know who did what.

So the 9/11 report started with the micro details and made very sweeping generalisations not about the conspiracy itself but about the nature of the threat that the United States faced.

In other words, the report stopped short of illuminating the big historical and sociological questions of how and why jihadi movements decided to attack the United States. It lumped indirectly the jihadi movement with the Islamist movement as a whole.

I think it was highly dangerous to make sweeping generalisations and to lump all jihadis together with al-Qaeda as well as the Islamist movement.

Why do you consider that to be dangerous?

The US is no longer facing a tiny dangerous faction within the Islamist movement that is al-Qaeda. The US faces now an ideological enemy which encompasses all jihadis, local jihadis and trans-national jihadis and even radical Islamists.

In many ways this basically sets the US on a highly dangerous track because it's one thing to say that the US faces al-Qaeda which is a highly dangerous enemy and it's another to say that the US faces an ideological threat which encompasses all jihadis and even all Islam.

It changes the nature of confrontation and basically convinces Americans who know very little about the nuances and differences between jihadis and the Islamists that somehow we're facing what I call an existential threat, a strategic threat. And this is not true.

You speak of other militant groups. Are Lebanon's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas part of the jihadis movement?

Yes, however, Hezbollah and Hamas are the radical Islamists who basically focus their energy and militancy on the [Israeli] occupation. They do not believe in the expansion of jihad outside the Arab-Israeli conflict.

How central an issue is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to these jihadi movements?

In the book, I show that the overwhelming majority of clerics, Islamists and civil society leaders were opposed to the 9/11 attacks.

But when it comes to the question of Palestine the opposite is true. The overwhelming majority of clerics, opinion makers, and religious leaders look at what Hamas and Islamic Jihad are doing against the Israeli occupation as legitimate forces of resistance.

The Israeli six day war in 1967 was really one of the pivotal factors in the rise of the Islamist and jihadi movement. No doubt about it. Palestine has inspired generations of Arab and Muslim activists and radicals and jihadis and militants ... even secular militants.

Has the war in Iraq strengthened al-Qaeda?

Well, I don't think the war in Iraq has strengthened al-Qaeda. I think what the war in Iraq has done is to create a new generation of jihadis who basically subscribe to a similar ideology to that of al-Qaeda.

I think the American war in Iraq has played into the hands of al-Qaeda's trans-national ideology on global jihad. In many respects, Iraq is slowly and gradually replacing Afghanistan as a recruiting tool and ground for jihadi action.

Let's remember though that the overwhelming majority of fighters in Iraq are Iraqi nationalists or Islamists who are trying to end the US occupation in Iraq.

But powerful factions of jihadis who are lead by [Abu Musab] al-Zarqawi have basically received a great deal of public and popular support as a result of the war that has raged in Iraq for the past three years.

So in many ways, yes it has supplied ammunition to the ideology of global jihad.

And of course it has deepened and widened anti-Americanism throughout Arab and Muslim lands. It silenced moderates who basically went on the offensive against the ideology of global jihad after 9/11.

What is the best way to defeat al-Qaeda?

The American war against al-Qaeda cannot and will not be won on the battlefield. The US is not facing a conventional army. This is an unconventional war and I think in many ways al-Qaeda is totally highly adaptable and dynamic.

The only way for the US and the international community to win this war is by creating coalitions and alliances with Arab and Muslim societies, not just counter-insurgency tactics.

The US must really endeavour to address the legitimate grievances of the floating middle and Arab and Muslim public opinion and create alliances by addressing regional conflicts like the Palestinian predicament.

It does this by keeping a healthy distance from Arab and Muslim dictators and by building bridges with the largest constituency in the Arab Muslim world - Arab and Muslim youth.

'Solution must include Syria and Iran'

2010-02-14T17:02:00.000-05:00

By Adla Massoud in Washington DC
Al Jazeera.net / August 26 2005

Richard Armitage believes Hezbollah is terrorism's A-team, with Iran as its owner and Syria as the team's coach. But the former US deputy secretary of state, during George Bush's first term as president also told Aljazeera.net that the Bush administration must engage in direct talks with Syria and Iran.

Armitage was also assistant secretary of defence under president Ronald Reagan when the US embassy in Lebanon was bombed in 1983. In 1998, he signed the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) letter to president Bill Clinton urging regime change in Iraq.

He was the last senior official to speak to the Syrian government in January 2005.

At the time he indicated Syria and the US had made progress regarding the security issue along the border with Iraq.

"Syria has made some real improvements in the recent months on border security. We all need to do more, particularly on the question of foreign regime elements participating in activities in Iraq going back and forth from Syria," Armitage told the press then.

Aljazeera.net: Two weeks after the shooting started in Lebanon between Hezbollah and Israel, you were one of the first people to openly advocate negotiations with Damascus and Tehran. Why?

Richard Armitage: It seems to me that Iran is the major supporter of Hezbollah and Damascus facilitates that support to Hezbollah. If we're going to have a solution it's going to have to be one that includes Iran and Syria. It's quite clear to me and I hope it will be quite clear to the administration.

You openly criticised the Bush administration's Middle East policies by stating recently that "this administration has an irrational fear that talking is a sign of weakness".

It's correct. My personal belief is that diplomacy is the art of sitting down with someone and letting them have your way. But the administration seems to believe it's a sign of weakness that we're talking and by the very nature of talking we will give away some of our bilateral equities. So I disagree entirely with them.

The president and Dr [Condoleezza] Rice have said at two different times that "we've talked to Syria and nothing was achieved". I myself went to Syria on New Years day in 2005 and I asked several things to the Syrian government and two of them they actually agreed to: Keep their hands off the Lebanese government elections - they did - and I asked them for some help getting turned over to Iraqi and US forces the half brother of Saddam Hussein and they did.

I didn't get everything that I wanted but that's something and that's the beginning of discussions.

Has Israel's campaign in Lebanon deterred the US from attacking Iran?

I don't know if the US was on the verge of attacking Iran. I think the president has said he prefers diplomacy. On the question of Iran, we will study the Iranian offer they made today to the negotiators in Geneva, see if we can have serious talks with them on the nuclear question and therefore obliterate the need for military action. I don't think we have exhausted diplomacy with Iran.

You were an assistant secretary of defence back in 1982, when a peacekeeping force was sent into Lebanon but ultimately pressed to withdraw. Do you see any parallels with the current multinational force headed to south Lebanon?

I think the parallels begin before multinational forces. I also said in 1982 my Israeli friends [were] sitting in my office telling me not to worry about the "Peace for Galilee" operation because the Israelis understood the Lebanese so well, after all they were neighbours.

Well it turns out they did not understand the complex politics of Lebanon very well. I am afraid the same thing happened this time. So the parallels begin much prior to a multinational force. The question of the multinational force is what they really are going to do. And we keep hearing the word "robust" rules of engagement; I don't understand what that means. This is not a chapter seven operation, it's a chapter six operation from the UN charter and so I don't quite know what "robust" means. I think there's quite a while before we actually get a meaningful multinational force in place.

So I am grateful to the government of Italy for deciding to step up.

Will it make a difference?

I think it's unreasonable to expect that the Lebanese armed forces will either be willing or able to disarm Hezbollah at all. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if many of the sympathies of the armed forces reside with Hezbollah.

A year after 9/11, you were asked at a Washington forum whether the Bush administration had plans, in its "war on terror", for Hezbollah. You said: "Their time will come. There is no question about it. They have a blood debt to us, and we're not going to forget it." Have they repaid their debt in the latest conflict?

For me as long as long as they are still armed and are still inciting violence then they have not paid their debt. This is very personal for me: In addition to the marines barracks bombing in 1983 they were very much responsible for the killing of Colonel Rich Higgins who was serving with the United Nations.

He was a friend of mine, he was killed in the most heinous way, in a way I will not describe to your readers because they will be horrified. But that is a blood debt. Now if Hezbollah were to put down their arms and move 100% into the political arena that would be quite a different story.

Rice said the Lebanon conflict represented the "birth pangs of a new Middle East" and is on the verge of realisation. Yet we are back at yet another ceasefire and stalemate. How do you view this so called new Middle East?

From Marrakesh (Morocco) to Bangladesh, people were astonished by this statement. I don't think the birth pangs of the Middle East. I think it's the aftershocks of the Ottoman Empire, that's what we're seeing. But if we're saying it's the birth pangs of the new Middle East then we gave birth to a very difficult baby (laughs).

Do you think the Bush doctrine of "spreading democracy" in the Middle East has backfired?

Well it certainly is an irony that in democratic elections we've seen for instance Hezbollah now occupying seats in the cabinet of Lebanon, Hamas's victory in the Palestinian territories. So I wouldn't say it backfired but there's certainly an irony that the first expressions of this democracy seems to have brought about people who are very closed to the United States. I think in the long run we'll see what these parties can really deliver and I think it's too early to tell if it backfired.

Let's move on to Iraq. You were a great supporter of regime change in Iraq. Do you regret it?

I don't regret the changing of the Saddam regime. I think if I lived in Iran, if I lived in Kuwait for obvious reasons I wouldn't regret it, if I were a Kurd I wouldn't regret it, if I were a Shia I wouldn't regret it. But what I do regret [is] the manner in which we did it. We weren't escapable, we did not have enough soldiers, we weren't smart enough to manage the peace. And I regret that very much.

Shia factions who at the beginning supported the US are now openly turning against it. Is it time for the US to pull out of Iraq?

No. I think the government of Iraq will know when it's the proper time, when they can handle this. I agree with the president when he said it's not the time to leave. The irony is right now, although the Shia welcomed the liberation of Iraq, it's the Sunnis who are more desirous of having the US to provide some kind of security.

Should Bush talk to Syria?

2010-02-14T16:54:00.001-05:00

By Adla Massoud
Al Jazeera.net / December 16 2006

In recent weeks, US politicians have urged that the Bush administration engage in dialogue with Syria, an Arab country considered by the White House to be a state sponsor of terrorism and a conduit for fighters both in Iraq and Lebanon.

Earlier this week, John Kerry, former Democratic presidential nominee and current US Senator from Massachusetts, said his country's foreign policy in the Middle East was in trouble and that talking with Syria and Iran should be an imperative.

But Joshua Landis, a Syria expert and co-director of the Center for Peace Studies at the University of Oklahoma, believes the Bush administration will simply not budge on the issue.

A senior Fulbright scholar in Syria in 2005 and operator of a Website called SyriaComment.com, Landis says the current view among the neoconservatives in Washington is that Syria is ruled by an "evil" dictatorship.

Aljazeera.net: Is it a good idea for the US government to isolate Syria?

Joshua Landis: I don’t think it's going to succeed in accomplishing any goals for the United States. It does accomplish goals for some hardliners which is that Syrians are bad people, the Syrian government is an evil government from their point of view, and should not be engaged, should not be talked to and that maintaining that line is important to American values, to western ideology which is democracy promotion.

And many in Washington feel that we're not going to go back - as the Hamilton-Baker report recommended - to dealing with dictators.

Condoleezza Rice's big position in dealing with Syria is that for 60 years we made a mistake in believing that supporting the status quo and dealing with dictators creates stability.

She says this is a false stability and we're not going to do it again. And I think there are a number of vital elements of this administration that believe that it's an important principle to cling to.

You've spent many years in Syria … The US and Syria have a mutual distrust, will talking alter the situation?

Talking will change things, doing will change things. Syria wants a number of things done and if it can get that through engagement then I think Syria will be delighted to engage.

And that list goes from the number one of the last list - at least what the Syrians claim is number one - is getting the Golan Heights back, re-opening some kind of dialogue with Israel, which would lead to the Golan being returned up to the 1967 borders.

Number two, is retaining influence in Lebanon and being the primary factor in influencing the direction of Lebanon’s foreign policy, certainly keeping Lebanon from being this western aircraft carrier that promotes anti-Syrian groups.

Third, would be some kind of influence over the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in order to wage this war for Arab values and a happy settlement of the Palestinian problem.

And, of course, there’s influence in Iraq, and so forth.

How important is Lebanon to Syria?

It's vital. The defence types in Damascus argue that Syria’s incline to instability during the 50s and 60s was attributable in some parts to Lebanon being used as this aircraft carrier.

Now we can't forget that in 1956/57, the US-trained 300 Allawite guerrilla commandos who were members of the PPS of Antoine Saade’s Syrian Social Nationalist Party to help other Syrians pull off a coup in Syria and the CIA were training them in the Chouf Mountains.

Also, all the opposition people in Syria would go to Lebanon and it was from Lebanon they waged a war against the Syrian regime to keep Syria in the western orbit at a time when Syria was torn between Russia and the US.

So it’s this kind of memory; then, of course, Israel threatened to invade in 1975, which led Syria go into Lebanon in order to keep Lebanon from becoming a Palestinian mousetrap should the PLO and Muslims have won their struggle against the Christians, so Syria intervened in order to make sure that it didn't happen which they believe would have invited an Israeli invasion.

So Syria has had to go into Lebanon, intervene in Lebanon’s affairs on a number of occasions and we can see 1958 as another example of the Eisenhower doctrine where American troops landed in Lebanon and intervened against Syria's support for the Nasserists anti-Chamoun movement.

This has been going on ever since the independence of both countries.

Because Lebanon is only 30km away from Damascus, Syria clearly and historically views Lebanon as a strategically viable interest and also we can add the economic factors and we can add on ideological factors.

Clearly in the war for the Golan Heights, Lebanon is the biggest and most important playing card in Syria's struggle to get respect from Israel and to give the Golan back.

And we saw this summer, Hezbollah's good showing against Israel opened a dialogue at least about the present debate about whether the Golan Heights should be returned, and whether Israel should have dialogue or whether the US should have dialogue with Syria because Syria is clearly an important player.

Syria as a transit point for weapons to Hezbollah has great influence over Hezbollah.

Again, Lebanon becomes the main playing card in Syria's efforts to get the Golan Heights back.

Condoleezza Rice accused Syria and Iran of working to undermine the Lebanese government led by Fouad Siniora and said Washington would not negotiate Lebanon's future with anybody. Will the US administration stick to its guns or bow to pressure because of Iraq?

It's sticking to its guns. I mean the moment for dialogue was a few months ago. And the US has banded down what was a rather vivacious call by many different people in Israel and within the US establishment to open dialogue with Syria.

And that did not appeal because in order to do that, the US would have to let Syria play a more prominent role in Lebanese politics.

And Bush seems committed not to do that. Lebanon has become a central pen pang in his rapidly failing policy of bringing democracy to the Middle East, reforming the greater Middle East, which you do not hear much about anymore.

But Lebanon is the last bastion of the successes Bush had in 2005.

Is the United States hoping to use the international tribunal investigating the assassination of former Lebanese premier, Rafik Hariri, to find the government of Bashar Al-Assad guilty and thereby bring about regime change?

Well, that certainly is the hope of the extreme right wing. It's the hope of some of the reformers, some of the Syrian opposition people like Farid Ghadry and others who say it straight out. And there are a number of other persons who use this formula.

I think more realistic people understand that there is not going to be a clear cut. The evidence hasn’t come down yet from [UN investigator Serge] Brammertz's report to fully charge Syria and perhaps prove Syria's guilt. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence but there does not seem to be any smoking gun.

Now what does this serve? I don't think many people in Washington now believe that there's going to be a regime change in Syria any time soon, but what it does do is it gives Washington the only mechanism it has left to keep Syria isolated and try to stop what seems to be a growing wave of Europeans from going to Damascus and insisting on engagement with Syria.

In other words, if Syria were tied up in this court case for the next four or five years that was inconclusive. Nevertheless it would give people in Washington a big stick with which to discipline and keep pressure on Syria, to keep Syria isolated.

Fouad Siniora's government has reaffirmed its approval of the UN plan for the international tribunal to try suspects in the Hariri assassination plot. How threatened does Syria feel by the Tribunal?

Syria wants this tribunal to go away. It wants to make sure that Lebanon is not going to be used as a battering ram against it in its continuing struggles with the US.

If Syria wants it to go away, doesn't that prove their guilt?

Is Syria guilty? Obviously the entire world thinks Syria is guilty, outside of Syria, and some others in the Middle East. Reading between the lines in this new UN report that we're getting which I have not read but I've read a lot of articles about it - clearly Syria remains in the crosshairs of this investigation.

And at the same time there seems to be Brammertz, in contrast to [his predecessor Detlev] Mehlis, seems to be following new leads which could implicate the Lebanese side of things much more than the Syrians, at least on the ground level, but we don't know that.

Reading between the lines, it's clear they are linking together all the different murders that have gone on, the assassinations, and say they seem to follow a political line.

And that would implicate Syria and its allies in Lebanon.

US backing behind Lebanon's army

2010-02-14T16:45:00.001-05:00

Adla Massoud
Al Jazeera.net/ July 13 2007

One year after the Hezbollah-Israel war, Washington is adopting a more proactive stance towards Lebanon, adding military assistance to its diplomatic support for Beirut in a direct challenge to Syrian and Iranian influence in the region.

Middle East experts say the change in strategy is designed to deal with new political realities in Lebanon after the Cedar Revolution in 2005 which helped force Syria to withdraw its forces.

Previously, the US had supported Lebanese sovereignty and called for the disarming of militias in the UN Security Council, but Washington had repeatedly refused pleas for direct military assistance.

In 2006, Beirut asked for, but did not receive, $800m worth of advanced weapons to bolster the Lebanese army.

Emile El Hokayem, a Middle East expert at the Washington-based think tank Henry L. Stimson centre, told Al Jazeera that the White House had always feared its advanced weaponry could end up in the hands of groups opposed to the US.

"There's the fear that the Lebanese army might split up at one point and that this weaponry might be used by groups opposed to the US, fear that the military itself is not the most democratic institution in Lebanon, and that weaponry could be used against Israel. All these are very valid concerns," he said.

The military confrontation between Lebanese troops and fighters from the Fatah al-Islam group in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp, however, forced Washington to modify its approach.

El Hokayem said: "At the end of the day, the US only supported the Lebanese military when it started fighting militants in Nahr al-Bared and it looked liked the US was supporting the Lebanese army because it was fighting a cause Washington cares about: terrorism."

Increased military aid

Over the past few months, US military assistance to Lebanon has increased 16-fold.

Congress appropriated $769.5m for Lebanon in 2007, compared to less than $50m in previous years.

More than half of the $769.5m will go to supporting Lebanon's military, law enforcement and international peacekeepers charged with preventing Hezbollah from launching another war on Israel.

The aid package will make Lebanon the third largest recipient of US assistance per capita.

Vali Nasr, a professor at the Fletcher school of law and diplomacy at Tufts University and a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the council for foreign relations, said US aid is designed to ensure the Lebanese army does not lose face while fighting in the Palestinian refugee camp.

"The aid was to prevent the military losing faith in the battle against al-Qaeda in the Nahr al-Bared camps because if that happened then the government of Prime Minister Fouad Seniora would have fallen very easily," he said.

However, Nasr does not believe the Lebanese army will be a significant player in the domestic political scene for a number of years, even if it continues to receive military aid.

"US military aid is not going to solve Lebanon's political problems," he said.

Lebanon's political woes

Since Rafiq al-Hariri, the former prime minister, was assassinated in February 2005, the country has faced several bombings in civilian areas, killings of journalists and political figures, and a war on its southern border.

In early July, as the first anniversary of that war approached, the beleaguered Lebanese government was still trying to root out elements of the Fatah al-Islam armed group, thought to be allied with Al-Qaeda.

In June, a car bomb killed anti-Syrian parliamentarian Walid Eido and deepened fears in Washington that Syria could be seeking to reassert control after its 2005 withdrawal.

US officials hope the new military assistance package will send a clear message that Washington firmly stands behind Siniora's government.

But Anthony Cordesman, who holds the Arleigh A. Burke chair in strategy at the centre for strategic and international studies, warned US efforts to help rebuild the Lebanese army could fail to stabilise the country.

"Similar efforts in 1982-1983 simply armed an army that divided and became part of the problem rather than the solution," he said.

"Unwavering" support

In the meantime, the Siniora government and the opposition have reached a political impasse.

With presidential elections looming, the opposition has threatened to establish a rival government.
If the two camps cannot agree on a national unity government or on choosing a new president, chronic instability and fragmentation of authority could lead to chaos.

Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley, the director of the US state department's office of Egypt and Levant affairs, told Al Jazeera that US support for the current Lebanese government would be "unwavering".

"One of the things that we feel very strongly about is that there should not be additional steps to destabilise the government which include calling for another government to be put in place at the same time as the democratically elected government," she said.

"We will consider our options as to how better to support the democratically elected government of Lebanon."

Power sharing

But some Middle East analysts have criticised the way the US has dealt with some of Lebanon's political factions and say Washington should urge a framework of power sharing.

Nasr believes that in supporting the Siniora government and providing military aid but not pushing for negotiations between factions, the US will be seen as seeking to empower the government to impose its will on others.

This is a strategy that would be likely to further alienate Hezbollah.

Bruce Riedel, a Brookings Institution fellow and former adviser to George Bush, the US president, said: "The US has dealt with Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation. Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation and is also much more than that; it is the political representative of a sizeable part of the Lebanese political scene."

"We set up a situation in which it's very difficult to bring about any kind of political reconciliation," he said.

In recent months US politicians and independent policy groups such as the Iraq Study Group, headed by James Baker, former US secretary of state, and Lee Hamilton, a fomer Democratic congressman, have pushed the White House to convene a regional peace conference that includes Syria and Iran.

But while the US has begun engaging in regional talks on Iraq, the thorny issue of Hezbollah and its threat to Israel have kept talks on Lebanon off the negotiating table.

And this could lead to renewed military confrontations.

Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator and a scholar at the New America Foundation said: "When you have an armed camp and a deeply divided quality with a prospect of two governments, a parliament that has not convened … it's extremely dangerous for the external powers to continue driving it in that direction."

But he told Al Jazeera that he believed war could still be avoided if a regional dialogue runs concurrent with a national dialogue.

"Syria will most probably be part of that regional dialogue," he said.

Support groups offer jobless hope

2010-02-14T16:38:00.000-05:00

By Adla Massoud in New York
Al Jazeera.net/ February 16 2009

With unemployment rates reaching highs not seen in decades, job seekers are finding unusual ways to network.

They have been meeting in bars and religious centres or even waiting in line at help centres, all in the hope of landing a job.

Such informal gatherings have always existed, typically sponsored by church or synagogue groups and local career centres. However, the economic collapse has placed renewed importance on this homespun remedy.

Anxious about their future, the newly unemployed are moving away from their computers and opting for face-to-face contact to carve a path back to the workforce.

Waiting for a group session to start at a midtown church in Manhattan, Steve Jones says he worked for the past eight years at Morgan Stanley in fixed income sales before being laid off.

Jones, who is not a Christian, believes these informal meetings offer leads, tips, motivation and, most importantly, hope in tough times.

"This is the first time I face unemployment. It's hard to get angry because there are a lot of people in the same position," he says.

Jones spends most of his days trying to reconnect with old associates.

"I get up in the morning, I take my daughter to school, I get on the Bloomberg [website], I keep trying to arrange meetings. If this is the worst thing that has ever happened to me, then I am lucky."

'Emotional rollercoaster'

Others say that getting out and talking to their peers rather than just sitting at home waiting for the phone to ring or sending another résumé into cyberspace is improving their morale.

Zara Colbert, a 27-year-old graphic designer who has found new assignments hard to come by in the current downturn, says "the only good thing coming out of this economic crisis is there will be less constrictions, more creativity and a lot of reality will come back to the surface".

"Having said that, I still have no work and am struggling to pay my rent," she adds.

Richard Ober, a parishioner and one of the organisers of a weekly meeting for job hunters at the Trinity Church in New Jersey, says people from all backgrounds attend these meetings.

"I think that everyone who is attending these meetings is just concerned about how the current state of the economy will affect their individual ability to find a job."

"It's been a real emotional roller coaster," he says.

Feeling angry

With some of the largest firms on Wall Street having collapsed earlier this year, today's unemployed professionals are caught in a double bind.

There were more jobs lost in 2008 than any year since 1945, and more layoffs are being announced on a near daily basis.

These are expected to rise well into 2010. Since the start of the US recession in December 2007, some 3.6 million Americans have lost their jobs.

The US labour department has said that 598,000 people were made redundant in January 2009 alone - the highest monthly total since 1974.

A laid-off investment banker who did not wish to reveal his identity, tells Al Jazeera:

"Where I feel really angry is the system failed us. I partly blame the regulators but mainly the industry itself."

Alternative approaches

Hoping to change the system, Ariel Horn has redefined the meaning of group therapy.

In 2007, he left his job as a manager of strategic marketing at NBC Universal Sports to start a marketing agency which focuses on creating video and viral content for the digital market.

As promising leads dried up and opportunities dwindled, Horn decided to adopt an open-door policy for unemployed creatives from the advertising world.

"As we started seeing the unemployment rate creep up, we've found ourselves in this unique scenario where we thought it would be a good opportunity to open our doors, have people who are in between jobs come here and be creative," he said.

"It gives them a place to go where there are people who understand their situation and can offer them leads and opportunities they might not have had otherwise."

Bringing new business

Horn has acquired a group of people generating ideas that all hope will bring in new business, scoring both new clients for the firm and freelance work for the others.

He tells Al Jazeera that he receives emails from at least 15 people every day - from account managers to CEOs - who are eager to join his community.

"We had a gentleman who was the president of the Arena Football Network. He was at a major sport organisation and now he is working with us."

Josh Eichenstein, who works with Horn, says he is thankful to "have somewhere to go every day that gives a feeling of productivity I wouldn't have otherwise".

As US politicians agreed this week on the largest economic recovery plan since Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal during the Great Depression in the 1930s, Eichenstein, says he feels confident about the future.

"America is very resilient and we all believe in the system, in our country, and we'll come back. It will help us build character."

Iraq 'a new Somalia'

2010-02-14T16:33:00.000-05:00

By Adla Massoud
Al Jazeera.net / September 13 2007

Iraq will disintegrate and an independent Kurdish state is likely to emerge should the US military ends its presence there, say experts ahead of a crucial report on progress in the country by General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq.

General Petraeus is expected to brief US congress on the efficacy of the troop surge, which has seen the total US military presence swell to more than 160,000 and has been billed as a last-ditch effort to stabilise Iraq.

But Petraeus's congressional testimony comes amidst political turmoil in Washington, as several senior Republicans and Democrats deride the current strategy in Iraq and call for troop withdrawal.

Peter W Galbraith, a former US diplomat, told Al Jazeera: "Iraq after a US pullout will look very much like Iraq today - a country that has broken up and is in the midst of a civil war between its Sunni Arabs and Shias."

Galbraith, author of The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War without End, believes the Kurds will likely move towards independence, given the continued fighting in Baghdad.

"With its own president, parliament, army and flag, Kurdistan is already an independent country in everything but name," he said.

Federation or independence?

Historically stateless, Kurds have lost out on every nation-building bid since the break-up of the Ottoman Empire at the end of First World War in 1918.

In 2002, Kurdish leaders drafted proposals for a federal system for Iraq - one that would leave Kurdistan within Iraq's borders, but preserve much of the de facto autonomy Kurds gained under the US and UK-enforced no fly zones after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

A new Iraqi constitution in 2005 also opened the way for a federalist system, but federalism may no longer be a viable option.

And as the Iraqi government comes under fire for failing to pursue reconciliation, experts have also faulted the US handling of post-invasion Iraq.

Vali Nasr, a Middle East expert at the Council on Foreign Relations and Professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, believes the US has failed to breach divisions between warring factions in Iraq.

He told Al Jazeera: "There has not been a settlement between all these parties because the US has not facilitated such an engagement and did not actually encourage it."

Benchmark failures

Galbraith also faults the Bush administration's benchmark policy.

He says US efforts at reconciliation between Sunni Arabs and Shia have failed because each has very radically different views on the political and religious composition of Iraq that could never be papered over by "so-called benchmarks".

The failure to reach reconciliation in Iraq has, as a result, fuelled calls for Iraq to be carved up into separate states.

In 2006, a 'plan B' idea was floated in Washington calling, for the creation of an independent Kurdish state and for dividing the rest of the country.

Senator Joseph Biden, a leading Democrat, also co-authored with Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, a proposal to divide Iraq along ethnic and sectarian lines.

The proposal envisages up to five mini-states emerging from the current instability, each represented at the United Nations as fully independent political entities but linked economically and socially, much like member states of the European Union.

Regional power play

But experts warn that breaking up Iraq and creating a future Kurdish state could backfire, with civil wars erupting as factions vie for power and neighbours intervene.

This could lead to greater conflict in the Middle East, a scenario many countries in the region are trying to avoid.

Steven Simon, the Hasib J Sabbagh senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, believes that in the event of the country's break-up, violence will worsen, particularly between Shia factions.

In Iraq's south, Muqtada al-Sadr's al-Mahdi Army, the Iran-backed Badr organisation and the Shia-led government have already been locked in several battles for control of ministries and police stations.

Simon also told Al Jazeera a Kurdish move to independence could anger neighbouring countries. "The Kurds might complicate matters by moving their border southwards. The Kurds might also stir Turkish anger and possibly intervention."

Turkey and Iran have repeatedly threatened military intervention should the Kurds declare independence.

This has troubled US policy-makers, as the stated White House position is that Iraq should remain sovereign and unified.

But the Kurdish factions have been America's staunchest allies. If the Kurds opt for independence this could squeeze US interests between the Kurds and traditional Nato allies, Turkey.

Focus on al-Anbar

However, the White House may be signalling that it has given up on political reconciliation and is focusing on what it calls emerging successes.

Earlier this week George Bush, the US president, visited Iraq and bypassed Baghdad. He went to a heavily fortified air base in al-Anbar province, where he met local tribal sheikhs who have been co-operating with US forces to drive al-Qaeda and its affiliates out of Iraq.

By ignoring Baghdad, where the US military says Iranian-backed militia are firmly in control, the Bush administration could be moving towards a "soft partition" of Iraq where the Kurds are the de-facto power in the north.

Experts warn, however, that by pushing the Sunni Arab "success" in al-Anbar and criticising the Iranian influence of the Baghdad government, the US could simply be repeating the mistakes of the past four years.

Between 2003 and 2007, the US supported the Shia-led government and targeted the Sunni-led armed opposition. A reversal would simply invite other countries to play out proxy wars in Iraq.

Galbraith says that while Turkey will be occupied with the question of Kurdish independence in the north, Iran and Saudi Arabia will be engaged in the centre and south of Iraq.

A new Somalia?

Nir Rosen, a fellow at the New America Foundation and author of In the Belly of the Green Bird, believes US strategists should have looked at the collapse of Somalia in the 1990s and Lebanon in the 1980s as examples of what could go wrong in Iraq.

He said: "Militias control Iraq, some are Sunni, some are Shia, and some are Kurdish. Some fight with each other. Warlords, as in Somalia, will control various neighborhoods and fight other warlords. Militias will provide security and rule."

Rosen also believes Nuri al-Maliki will be the last prime minister of Iraq, because the country has neither the infrastructure nor the political will to hold new elections.

"The most important point is that it does not matter whether the US stays or leaves," he said.

"The future of Iraq, with or without America, is Somalia."

Harlem anticipates Obama presidency

2010-02-14T16:25:00.001-05:00

By Adla Massoud
Al Jazeera.net / November 4 2008

Traditionally the backyard of Hillary and Bill Clinton, Harlem is now abuzz with Obama fever.

The United States' epicentre of black culture is bracing itself for the prospect of the nation's first black presidential candidate, more than six decades after Harlem elected New York's first African-American to congress.

The fight between Barack Obama and John McCain is creating history and residents of the New York neighbourhood are filled with pride and excitement, but also fear.

Arleen Hatcher, the 47-year-old owner of Fisher's of Men restaurant on 125th Street, never thought she would live to see this election day and confesses to frazzled nerves.

"I think it is [a] wonderful thing that, even if he doesn't win, the opportunity has presented itself that an African- American can actually run and be nominated today.

"It is one thing that we have fought very hard for, what my ancestors died for - that cause - and to finally see it done is overwhelming," she says.

"I can't wait to see it over because I am all filled-up inside about it and I have a nine-year-old son and we have been telling him all about it and tomorrow he will be by our side at the poll to take advantage of this.

"It's an opportunity we thank God for. It's such a blessing!"

If Obama is elected president, Hatcher says millions of white Americans will have voted for him.

"In that office, he will represent not just blacks but all Americans.

"There's a time for a change and when it is time for a change, God put someone in place for the change to happen," she says.

Emma Clark, a retired teacher who was looking to purchase an Obama T-shirt with her 93-year-old mother on Malcolm X Boulevard, agrees.

"What we love most of all about him is that he is a Black American who is for all people, representing all of America.

"The key thing is that he is [for] everyone - not for blacks alone, for Hispanics alone, Asians alone, whites alone, he is for everyone," Clark says.

Great expectations

Nor is she alone in her thinking.

All across Harlem, great expectations for an Obama presidency continue to rise.

Higher wages and social security payments, cheaper housing, better jobs and affordable services are just some of the expectations.

"This world is in crisis, not only New York. People are struggling - food is high, rent is high, the subways are high, phone is high, car rent is high .... so what can we do?" says Alfred Evans, 83, who has been living in Harlem for the past 40 years.

"We've got somebody that can help us. So then we have to live for the hope that it will be better ... Obama is the second Moses."

With those sorts of hopes and dreams resting on his shoulders, some people wonder if an Obama presidency is bound to disappoint the millions of African-American voters who are casting their ballots for him.

"It's not going to be easy for him, but I know - I feel it in my heart - that Obama is going to turn this country around," John D Williams, a young disabled man, tells Al Jazeera.

"We cannot wait another four years. So if you want less drama, a lot of respect from your mama, then you should vote for Obama."

Struggle for support

Harlem's affection for Obama was not always a sure thing.

Once Hillary Clinton's turf and the home of Bill Clinton's office, the community's support was fractured between the senators from New York and Illinois.

Indeed, Hillary Clinton received twice as many votes as Obama in Harlem's district during the New York Democratic primary in February.

But 10 months later, after a lengthy and bitter Democratic race, Harlem's political leaders and Clinton backers have slowly got on board with the Illinois senator.

Obama signs now adorn nearly every street corner and many Harlem businesses.

Black Americans are by far the most reliable voting bloc for the Democrats, with an estimated 90 per cent of African-American voters casting their ballots in favour of the Democrats in an ordinary election year.

That figure has risen to 98 per cent amid Obama's run for the White House.

"Hillary Clinton was actually my first choice and I thought of Obama as vice president," says Williams.

"People were saying he didn't have the experience. Since then, I think he is ready for it and has great leadership."

For more than a century, Harlem has been among the cultural centres of African-American life in the United States and the core of robust social and political activism in New York City.

Although Harlem has produced iconic black political figures, such as Malcolm X and Adam Clayton Powell to name two, one resident, 34-year-old Malik Payne, a nursing student, says the world is witnessing history.

"This is a historic event, especially for those who saw people die for the right to vote," Payne says.

"We need something that the people can believe in again. Children of today that do not believe in anything will see that a black man or anybody that comes from where they come from can become whatever they want," Payne says.

"And that right there alone is a great accomplishment. I feel very proud and it was long due."

Arab-Americans look for change

2010-02-14T16:18:00.001-05:00

By Adla Massoud in New York
Al Jazeera.net / February 2 2008

The United States's 3.5 million Arab-Americans represent a tiny sliver of the US electorate, but they could still affect the outcome of the upcoming presidential election.

The diverse Arab-Americans community is concentrated in some of the country's most evenly divided states, including Michigan, Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania.

And it is the Democrats who have the most to gain as traditionally Republican Arab-American voters, disillusioned by the Bush administration's policies, have begun leaning towards their party.

Now, community groups hope to use this solidarity to build a voting bloc that could increase their political weight.

Ideological shift

Analysts say the shift to voting Democrat is a national trend that began in 2002, following growing frustration with the Bush administration's unpopular domestic and foreign policies.

"We saw that in the elections in 2004, we saw it again in the elections in 2006 and - if all holds as we're seeing it play out right now - we would most probably see it play out in 2008," says Dr James Zogby, president and founder of the Arab-American Institute (AAI).

And Zogby is not alone in noticing this trend.

"Arab and Muslim voters historically were more Republican," says Peter Beinart, senior fellow on US foreign policy at the Council for Foreign Relations (CFR).

"We will now see a big sea change in which Democrats would win the overwhelming majority of those votes."

'Erosion' of rights

After the September 11 attacks in 2001, the Arab-American community became increasingly concerned at the backlash against them, as issues of racial profiling, discrimination and intimidation took a heavy toll on Republican support.

Data from the Zogby International polling firm shows that in 2000, 40 per cent of Arab-Americans identified themselves as Democrats and 38 per cent identified as Republicans.

Today, 39 per cent say they are Democrats and only 26 per cent call themselves Republicans.

Abed Hammoud, one of the founders of the Arab-American Political Action Committee (AAPAC) told Al Jazeera that Arab-Americans felt "threatened".

Hammoud, who is from Detroit, where Arabs constitute more than one third of the city's population, said: "We want America to fight terrorism - let's be clear about that," he says.

"But it's the way this issue has been handled since Bush has been in power that it has resulted in the erosion of our civil rights."

"If you see how the public opinion, the media and the American government have changed their approach to Arab and Muslims since 2001, it's scary."

Anger at discrimination

Sam Ibrahim, a member of the Arab-Americans for Barack Obama group on Facebook, agrees, saying he believes Obama will be more sensitive to the plight of ethnic, racial and religious minorities in America.

"I fear as a Muslim-American that, because of who I am, I will be a target of discrimination," he says.

"Because of this I would gravitate more towards a candidate [who] would respect human rights and uphold the American constitution much more than the current government has."

Three-quarters of the US Arab-American electorate is Christian, but they nonetheless share Arab-Muslim concerns on racial profiling, the war in Iraq, Lebanon and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"There's a sort of communal sense that has emerged that this discrimination isn't acceptable," says Zogby.

"The image of the Arab is one that ought to be treated more respectfully and even amongst Christians [there is] a sense that Islam ought to be treated better."

Foreign policy

Hammoud adds that despite any criticism Arab-Americans may voice against the Bush administration's foreign policy in the Middle East, civil rights remain at the forefront of their concerns.

"We do care about foreign policy but people think that's the only issue we care about," Hammoud says.

"I still think how are we going to be looked at here is our overriding concern."

But some Arab-American activists say that recent Arab immigrants to the US react more to foreign policy issues because many have personal ties to the region.

"We have Arab-Americans who have been here since the 1860s," says Marwan Kreidie, President of the Philadelphia Association of Arab Americans,

"For them it's not as a salient issue as it is with Arabs who have come here three years ago or two years ago."

The Obama effect

According to the Arab-American Institute (AAI), the leading candidate among Arab-Americans voters is Barack Obama, who would be the nation's first African-American president if successful.

"Like a lot of Americans they see in him a sign of hope," Zogby says.

"In 2004 a lot of people, activists in the community, remembered his speech at the Democratic convention, [where] he spoke about Arab-Americans ... and mentioned their pain of discrimination and it was part of the centre of his speech," Zogby says.

"Since 2002, the turn against Republicans has been so dramatic that any Democratic would do well. But he does extra well because he has a message that resonates."

Kreidie also thinks Arab-Americans in Philadelphia are most likely to vote for Obama.

"I think the fact that we always looked at ourselves as a minority end and having a minority like Obama is something people like. His fresh views on the Iraq war, all these combinations make him exciting."

Encouraging turnout

A big concern now for activists is mobilising the Arab-American community and ensuring that people show up at the polls.

In an attempt to ensure a strong turnout, community leaders are going to great lengths to better explain the voting process and work to educate those who have grown apathetic.

Statistics show that in the past three elections, the Arab-American turnout was actually higher than the country as a whole - by almost 20 per cent.

But as one Arab-American voter from Iowa told Al Jazeera, Arab-Americans will go to the polls as voters first, a minority group second.

"At the end of the day, I don't want to be a token or a minority but someone who can sit at the table and get his answers."

Lebanon's first civil conflict

2010-02-14T16:11:00.002-05:00

By Adla Massoud
Al Jazeera.net / March 4 2008

Viewed as the intellectual and commercial capital of the Arab world - a unique blend of the West and the Middle East, of Christendom and Islam - Lebanon was a magnet for money, democracy and political refugees.

But in the late 1950s, the rise of Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt and the upsurge of Arab nationalism put Lebanon's democratic system under severe strain.

The struggle for power between Lebanon's pro-Arabist opposition and its president was also exacerbated by the unification of Syria and Egypt into a federation called the United Arab Republic (UAR) in February 1958.

By raising the issue of Arab unity, Egypt's Nasser seriously threatened the critical balance of power in Lebanon achieved by the Maronites, Druze and Sunnis since its independence in 1943.

Large sections of Lebanese Christians saw in this development a threat to the independent existence of the State of Lebanon and to their prominent role in government and society.

Adel Osseiran, the Muslim Lebanese speaker of parliament, declared in 1958 that "Lebanon will march with the Arab caravan" and that "anyone who thinks of working for interests other than those of the Arabs will have no room in Lebanon".

Chamoun reacts

But this angered Camille Chamoun, Lebanon's president and a staunch Maronite, who became increasingly intolerant of the Muslim opposition.

Chamoun had taken office the same year Nasser came to power in 1952. By the middle of his six-year term, Chamoun's extreme pro-Westernism and Nasser's burgeoning Arab nationalism were locked in battle.

To the dismay of both the Muslims and Lebanese nationalists, the Lebanese president refused to sever diplomatic ties with Britain and France after they - and Israel - attacked Egypt in 1956.

"The rulers of Lebanon," Nasser declared later, "stabbed us in the back during our time of stress."

Disregarding Muslim sensitivities, Chamoun went a step further and placed Lebanon under the Eisenhower Doctrine, the American pledge to defend friendly governments against outside 'communist' threats.

While Chamoun and his government were determined to win the battle of wills against the opposition by counting on the physical and political support of the Western powers, they overestimated Lebanon's strategic importance to the West.

Suez aftershock

The unrest was intensified by the assassination of Nassib Matni, the Maronite anti-Chamoun editor of Al Telegraph, a daily newspaper known for its outspoken pan-Arabism. The revolt almost became a religious conflict between Christians and Muslims.

In the early hours of July 14, 1958, a revolution overthrew the monarchy in Iraq and the entire royal family was killed. Lebanon found itself caught in the trap of politics and national agendas of its more powerful neighbours as it would increasingly in the future.

In Lebanon, jubilation prevailed in areas where anti-Chamoun sentiment predominated, with radio stations announcing that the Chamoun regime would be next.

Realising the gravity of his situation, he summoned the ambassadors of the US, Britain and France on the morning of July 14 and argued that Lebanese Muslims were being helped by Syria which had received arms from the Soviet Union.

Fawaz Gerges, a professor of Middle East studies at Sarah Lawrence College in New York, says Chamoun may have overplayed his international significance.

"The Lebanese crisis might not have escalated so dangerously had Chamoun's regime and its opponents not over-estimated their strategic importance," Gerges told Al Jazeera.

"If both sides had kept a proper perspective of their place in the world, they would have been forced to come to terms with each other. Instead, they relied on foreign intervention to tilt the balance of power in their favour."

"They lost sight of the fact that the external actors were using them as proxies to fight their own wars," Gerges added.

Marines land
The first American marine contingent landed in Beirut on July 15, 1958. The operation was swift, clean and successful. The civil strife came to an end on July 31 with both sides accepting Lebanese army commander General Fuad Chehab as the next president of Lebanon.

Although the war took a toll of some 2,000 to 4,000 lives, it was regarded by many as a comic opera, especially when 5,000 US Marines landed on the beaches near Beirut and waded ashore among sunbathers and swimmers.

The 1958 'civil war', says Nadim Shehadi, an associate fellow at London's Chatham House, came as an aftershock of the 1956 Suez War "in the same way as the 1969 crisis came as an aftershock of the 1967 war and the civil war came two years after the 1973 war".

"In the aftermath of the Iraqi revolution and US intervention in Lebanon, the Eisenhower administration embarked on a major reappraisal of its strategy in the area," Gerges told Al Jazeera.

"To the United States, the virtual collapse of conservative resistance to radical Arab nationalism made the latter appear to be the driving force in the region; it was the wave of the future."

Iraq war batters US economy

2010-02-14T16:03:00.001-05:00

By Adla Massoud
Al Jazeera.net / March 22 2008

Five years since the the US began its invasion of Iraq, the world's largest economy is struggling to cope with the cost - estimated to be at least $500 billion and rising.

Two prominent US economists say the Iraq war and the US economy are now inextricably linked.

Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel-prize winning economist, and Linda Bilmes, authors of "The Three Trillion Dollar War," argue that the Iraq war will cost the US at least $3 trillion and possibly as much as $5 trillion.

Bilmes, a budget and public finance expert at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, told Al Jazeera that "both in a long-term sense and a short-term sense, the United States is worse off economically speaking because of the war.

"In a long-term sense, we have added already about $800 billion to our national debt as a result of the borrowing and the war," she said.

"In the short-term sense, we are spending $12 billion a month in Iraq alone and that clearly limits the amount of money that we have to provide things like economic stimuli to improve the economy."

Oil prices go up, not down

Washington's overall spending on domestic programmes outside of defence, such as education, highways and law enforcement, has grown.

But over the seven years of the Bush presidency, the funding for these programmes represents a declining share of the budget and economy.

Bilmes said her study looked at the total cost of the war, which includes the total amount of money that has been spent to date, the cost of taking care of veterans when they return, providing disability compensation to veterans, replenishing military equipment and the cost of borrowing.

And whatever the reasons for the US bombing of Baghdad, cheap oil has not been the result.

In fact, the price of oil has climbed from $25 a barrel to a staggering $110 over the past five years.

"The price of oil is an interesting issue. The oil price was $25 per barrel before we invaded Iraq and it's about $110 per barrel now and we only included in our model a very small percentage of that," Bilmes said.

Cost of stability
However, others say that $3 trillion is a price worth paying by the US.

Robert Shapiro, a former undersecretary of commerce in the Clinton administration and fellow at the Brookings Institution says the figure would be a small price to pay for stability in the Middle East.

"The Bush administration in Iraq is not driven by economics," Shapiro said. "They are driven by judgments about the impact of this policy on the role of the United States in the world and that's as it should be.

"If this policy were sound and successful for the people of Iraq and for the stability of the region, this $3 trillion debt over a period of time will be a small price to pay and one that the American people will pay gladly."

Economic flu

Others also argue that the real cause of the US' economic woes is not the war in Iraq, but the subprime mortgage crisis and the housing market collapse.

Dean Baker, a co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a Washington think tank, told Al Jazeera that tying the recession to the Iraq war was a mistake.

"It's like someone who doesn’t take care of themselves, doesn’t exercise, eats lots of junk food, so they are in bad shape and get pneumonia," Baker said.

"You know they are going to have a harder time dealing with pneumonia because they hadn't been in good shape before they got it.

"I would say that is the same thing with the war and the recession, that if we hadn't blown $180 billion a year on the war we would have been better prepared, we would have had a better educated workforce, better infrastructure, a better position to deal with the recession."

But Bilmes said the borrowed trillions have to come from somewhere.

"The money is borrowed in the capital markets and approximately 40 percent of the money that is borrowed this way is financed from overseas," she said.

"We had to borrow all the money that we've used to wage the war and of course we would have to pay interest on that money that we borrowed as well as repaying that money itself. So this really is a transfer of the cost of the war to the next generation."

Thus, any idea that war is good for the economy, Bilmes argued, is a myth.

Palestinian refugees key to peace

2010-02-14T15:57:00.003-05:00

By Adla Massoud
Al Jazeera.net/ July 13 2009

According to some analysts, there are at least four-and-a-half million reasons why peace continues to elude the Middle East.

That is how many Palestinians have become refugees since the creation of Israel in 1948. And until their plight is addressed, there can be no resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, say aid groups, political leaders and Palestinian officials.

Christopher Gunner of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which is charged with Palestinian refugee care, told Al Jazeera: "They are an absolute integral part of the search for peace because it is quite clear having 4.5 million homeless and stateless refugees in this region makes it inherently unstable."

Right of return

Though the right of return has not been a focus of recent talks, an overwhelming majority of Palestinians believe that refugee rights must be fulfilled for any peace initiative with Israel to endure.

According to an August 2007 poll by the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center, nearly 70 per cent believe that refugees should be allowed to return to "their original land".

This belief is based on a right of return clause found in Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which declares that "Everyone has the right to leave any country including his own, and to return to his country."

But because flooding Israel with millions of Muslim Arabs would change the country's demographics, Israeli officials across the political spectrum warn that the "right of return" is code for the destruction of the Jewish state.

"I don't think you can wish them away and I don't think you can pretend they don't exist," Dennis Ross, former US peace envoy, said of the refugees.

"What I think they don't have the option to do is return to Israel because that's a one-state solution and not a two-state solution," Ross, who led Middle East peace negotiations in the 1990s, told Al Jazeera.

In his book The Missing Peace, Ross blamed Yasser Arafat, then Palestinian Authority chairman, for the failure of the 2000 Camp David Summit.

It is believed that the talks fell apart because of disagreement over the right of return issue.

"When we were looking at the choices, we looked at the United States, Canada, Australia, Europe, third countries as being one of the possibilities for resettlement and we were talking about creating a $30 billion fund for compensation or for support and repatriation and settlement," Ross said.

But the proposed compromise offer ultimately proved unsatisfactory.

Igniting the war

The Palestinian refugee problem came into being in 1947, when Britain handed the increasingly vexing issue of a Zionist claim to Palestine over to the UN.

The UN plan to partition Palestine into Arab and Jewish states was, not surprisingly, met with opposition by the Palestinians but warmly received by many of the nation's Jewish residents.

The November 29, 1947 vote of partition, backed by the US and the Soviet Union while Britain abstained, ignited the war for Palestine.

Arab opposition to the partition erupted into war between Palestine's Arab and Jewish inhabitants, which spread as the surrounding Arab countries attempted to defeat the newly established state of Israel following Britain's departure from the country in 1948.

When the mandate expired, the Jews declared a state in accordance with the partition resolution, and the armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq invaded Palestine.

The subsequent defeat of the Arab armies led to the exodus of 700,000 Palestinian and Arab forces. Palestinians refer to the 1948 events as al Nakba, meaning disaster. Most migrated to Gaza, which was under Egyptian occupation; to the West Bank, then part of the Hashemite Emirate of Transjordan (later the Kingdom of Jordan); to Syria; and to Lebanon.

Speaking on their behalf
On May 14, 1948, a Jewish state was declared. The pattern of Palestinian flight continued during the Six-Day War in 1967 and through today.

Those who left are not allowed to return and are now classified as "displaced" persons.

Attempts were made to resolve the problem through political discussions between Israel and its Arab neighbors during the spring and summer of 1949 and during the fall and winter of 1951, but they proved futile.

At that time, the Arab states were the principal guardians of Palestinian interests - the Palestinians themselves were not a party to these talks as official participants.

Various delegations of refugees tried to raise their concerns at the time, but were unsuccessful. Meanwhile, the number of refugees continued to grow, as did the funds UNRWA needed to take care of them.

Since partition, the UN has accepted responsibility for care and maintenance of the Palestinian refugees. Today, UNRWA operates with a biennial cash and in-kind regular budget of more than $600 million.

The agency's annual expenditure per refugee, however, has dropped from $200 to $70 because of rising costs of living and providing services, and the high growth rate of the refugee population.

Out of focus

In recent years, with attention focused on the question of a Palestinian state or other political entity, less emphasis has been placed on long-term prospects of resolving the refugee problem.

But some observers, like Julie Peteet, an expert in refugee studies and Palestine at Louisville University in Kentucky, believe that the establishment of a two-state solution will lead to no resolution at all.

"I think the only solution is a one-state solution," she told Al Jazeera.

"Do I think it's possible? Almost impossible – but if only to resolve the issue with justice, it's to have one state, the state of its citizens, and that would include all the Muslims, Jews and Christians, all the Palestinians as well as the Israelis."

Interview: Navanethem Pillay / UN

2010-02-14T15:51:00.001-05:00

By Adla Massoud
Al Jazeera.net / December 8 2008

Navanethem Pillay, the newly-appointed UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, is a South African who began her career in Durban as an advocate for political prisoners under apartheid.

She spoke to Al Jazeera about the greatest human rights challenges of our time and how a lack of implementation is halting progress to safeguard these rights.

Al Jazeera: The Universal Declaration was written in 1948; 60 years on, what do you see as the major human rights challenges facing the world?

Pillay: Well, we must recognise that, for all the solemn commitments and legislative advances made in the promotion and protection of international human rights – and these have been considerable – serious implementation gaps remain.

The problem lies in the imperfect implementation of the Universal Declaration, not in its content.

Impunity, armed conflict and authoritarian rule have not been defeated, and regrettably, human rights are at times sidestepped in the name of security.

Freedom from discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status – the promises of the Universal Declaration - remains an elusive goal for many people around the world.

As we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights this year, we must take stock of the fact that racism, discrimination and intolerance are global problems which must be of concern to all. Indeed, they represent some of the greatest human rights challenges of our time.

Rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly, which are indispensable to the functioning of civil society, continue to come under sustained attack in all regions of the world.

And there are still too many countries that systematically discriminate against women, despite strong international standards, and despite recognition of the critical role that women play in development, and in fostering peace and security.

We must work for the full implementation of human rights in a way that affects and improves the lives of men, women and children everywhere. We are all entitled, regardless of our race, sex, religion, nationality, property or birth, to the realisation of each and every right set forth in the Universal Declaration.

In Darfur, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Iraq, Palestine and many more countries there are human rights violations. What is the UN doing about it? How desperate is the situation?

These are four huge, complex and, by and large, very different situations.

Let me concentrate on one of these places - the one where five million people are estimated to have died from conflict-related reasons over the past 12 or so years, and where fighting and gross human rights violations have broken out once again in recent weeks, despite the presence of the world's largest peace-keeping force.

The eastern part of the DRC is in a desperate state.

Today, as was the case last December, and a decade ago, the gravest threats to durable peace and stability in the Great Lakes region remain the prevailing culture of impunity, and the often illegal and bloody exploitation of natural resources fuelling conflict.

These – interlinked – factors, more than anything else, contribute to the wide range of serious human rights violations that have, and still are, taking place in the DRC, including massive displacement, killings and violence against women.

The human rights situation in the DRC is of grave concern and continues to be characterised by arbitrary detentions and executions, torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, the use of excessive and disproportionate force by the National Congolese Police, widespread sexual violence, interference in the administration of justice as well as intimidation and threats against human rights defenders.

The scale and brutality of sexual violence in the DRC is beyond definition. All armed groups and forces – Congolese and foreign – have used rape as a weapon of war.

While sexual violence is a phenomenon that sadly exists throughout the world, it has reached pandemic proportions in the DRC for one simple reason: it is permitted.

Impunity is the greatest challenge, and my office continues to work jointly with other UN agencies, the government and civil society to tackle impunity regarding cases of sexual violence.

You have called for a global conference in April 2009 on racism, xenophobia and intolerance, to examine compliance on standards created at the controversial 2001 World Conference. How can you ensure the participation of all member nations, after the United States and Israel walked out of the 2001 conference because of perceived anti-Semitism?

There has been much concern expressed about the anti-racism review conference scheduled for April 2009. My starting point in addressing this challenge is to promote participation.

I am prepared to deal with differences among states and to do everything I can to ensure that these differences are addressed in a constructive manner. The process will benefit from active participation by all.

Without that participation, we will not be able to address the differences honestly. Without that participation, the anti-racism debate and agenda will be impoverished.

I do not believe that "all or nothing" is the right approach to affirm one's principles or to win an argument.

Nelson Mandela has taught me that, far from being appeasement, coming to terms with other people's experiences and points of view may serve the interest of justice better than strategies that leave no room for negotiation.

For this reason, I urge those governments that have expressed an intention not to participate in the conference to reconsider, and I will do all in my power to bring everyone to the table.

I hope that we can make this a constructive process that gives new momentum to the struggle against discrimination, xenophobia, intolerance and racism and brings us at least a little closer to, rather than further apart from, an understanding of the sensitivities on all sides.

Job fairs boom amid economic crisis

2010-02-14T15:46:00.000-05:00

by Adla Massoud
Al Jazeera.net/ March 3 2009

The line to get into the job fair stretched around three sides of one block.

More than 2,000 job seekers turned out at a Midtown hotel in New York City to shake hands, exchange business cards and score a quick interview. Either out of work or soon to be, they were all seeking a way to turn their fortunes around.

Thirty employers waited inside, each with their own selling points - from sales to health care to opportunities in the military.

With the unemployment rate soaring to its highest level in over 15 years, many job seekers are feeling anxious. For every position available, there are many qualified candidates.

Barbara Safani, the president of Career Solvers, a career consultancy company, says many of the firms in attendance may not be actively recruiting but rather using job fairs as an opportunity to market their brand.

"A lot of companies still attend these job fairs to keep their pipeline strong even if they are not going to hire," she said.

High-performing candidates

Peter Stack, the vice-president of insurance company MetLife, which had several booths at the fair, said the economic crisis has not altered their hiring policies.

"We're still looking for high-performing individuals. It's always good to have such rich talent," he said.

Some employers are making the most of rising unemployment to improve their workforce, says Jennifer Grasz from careerbuilder.com, a recruitment website.

"What we are seeing is that employers are taking this time to upgrade their talent roster.

"They're replacing lower-performing employees with higher-performing candidates that may not have been available in a healthier job market. So, they are able to access a greater pool of talent," she said.

Grasz says the companies benefiting most from the economic crisis are outplacement firms - the outfits hired by employers to provide career counselling to the employees they lay off.

Long-term unemployed

According to a poll released by the Pew Research Centre, 40 per cent of Americans have been affected by some kind of employment-related problem in the past year, be it unemployment, underemployment, reductions in pay or hours, or family members being laid off.

Fifty-six per cent of those polled expect the situation to either deteriorate or stay the same in the next year.

The US Federal Reserve has also predicted that the economy will continue to shrink, pushing the unemployment rate even higher.

With limited opportunities available, the unemployed are now finding it increasingly difficult to become re-employed and according to US federal data, the number of long-term unemployed - those out of work for at least 27 weeks - has doubled to 2.6 million in the past year.

"I've been unemployed for almost a year now, and have applied for over 200 jobs," says 55-year-old Arnold Morse.

"I worked as an accountant and it's been hard for me to find a job because I don't have a CPA [certified public accountant].

"It's a test I should have taken 30 years ago when I first graduated from college but the way my career was going back then, I did not need it. Now a lot of places are looking for a CPA."

"I tried temping [temporary work] for a month," he adds. "But they decided I was overqualified for the job. It's been pretty rough out there."

Uncertainty

With the state of California's unemployment rate reaching 9.3 per cent, Vince Torres decided to try his luck in New York.

"This is the second job fair I attended and I think ultimately the best way to get a job is by networking," he said.

Some Federal Reserve officials fear it will take five to six years for the economy and employment to return to healthy levels. Employment is typically the last piece of the economy to heal as businesses slowly test the water before hiring again.

Jessica Moore, a single mother of two and a former retail employee, says: "What gets to me is the uncertainty, not knowing what tomorrow will bring."

Human Rights Eroding, analysts warn

2010-02-14T12:58:00.001-05:00

By Adla Massoud
Al Jazeera.net / December 8 2008

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was a significant document which enshrined the liberties of all peoples when it was adopted by the UN in 1948 but has seen its significance erode from one conflict to another, analysts have said.

Human rights experts and advocacy groups say politicisation of the UDHR by governments in the past 20 years has severely undermined its value along with its power to inspire.

Mary Robinson, the former UN high commissioner for human rights and the first woman president of Ireland, believes that despite the UDHR's efforts to bridge social and racial differences, the world today is more divided than ever.

"We are more divided on values than we should be, given the Universal Declaration and that's because human rights have become too politicised."

She says lines have been drawn between the West and the Islamic world, the poor and the rich.

Injustice, repression, torture

Amnesty International's 2008 State of the World's Human Rights report shows that 60 years after the UN adopted the UDHR, people are still tortured or ill-treated in at least 81 countries, face unfair trials in at least 54 countries and are not allowed to speak freely in at least 77 countries.

According to Curt Goering, the deputy executive director of Amnesty International USA, the whole human rights structure is based on the accountability of governments and it remains the task of governments to implement fundamental human rights standards.

"We see around the world in every region governments holding people imprisoned for nothing more than for the peaceful expression of their views, probably 50 or 60 countries are holding prisoners of conscience.

"I think the biggest threat to the future of human rights is governments continue to espouse the rhetoric of human rights and don't follow their promises with concrete actions."

Some of the world's most neglected populations suffer the worst human rights abrogation, as well as the added burdens of disease and malnutrition.

Where human rights are ignored, health care tends to be unequal, inadequate, or non-existent.

Gaza

Robinson recently revisited the Middle East. She says the human rights situation has grown worse in Gaza since she was last there eight years ago.

"I went there as UN High Commissioner for human rights and the reason is there is a siege and in a way there is order because Hamas has created order to a certain extent but there is no rule of law, there is a reduction in the freedom of speech, freedom of association and the freedom of the press under the regime of Hamas," she told Al Jazeera.

She said there is grave concern over the impact the siege is having on poor families who may not have adequate food and no avenue for assistance.

"I heard about how drugs are not getting in, children who have cystic fibrosis are not getting proper treatment and there have been 257 unnecessary deaths, some people who could not get to either the West Bank or to Israel for medical treatment. They used to be able to get out to get treatment but that now is virtually impossible."

Horror of war

Reeling from the horrors of World War Two, the UDHR signed on December 10, 1948, was designed to safeguard the rights of refugees, people caught in conflict, and to combat racism, gender inequality and the repression of the right to free expression.

And despite continued attacks on the universality of human rights, all countries have accepted the declaration, and some have incorporated it into their constitutions and laws.

Jean Marc Coicaud, the head of the UN University Office in New York, said: "I think most of the dramatic work in the field of human rights is done now.

"The challenge is to make sure now the gap existing between the norms and reality is being filled up as much as possible and that is the difficulty today."

War on terror

Upholding civil liberties in the post-9/11 period may prove to be quite challenging, however.

Robinson says that while international standards protecting civil and political rights were challenged by many countries, including the US, as part of their so-called war on terror, the current political climate around the world requires a return to the rule of law and protection of human rights.

"Protection of human rights allows steps to be taken in situations of emergency and in situations of real fear about security but they must be precisely time limited and they must be under very careful scrutiny," she said.

"In almost 30 other countries around the world, the problem was because the US did not impose standards, other countries felt security was the main paradigm and it was no longer necessary to impose standards of human rights. And it has really been very damaging."

Although the US government frequently criticises other countries for their human rights transgressions, international rights experts say it has been one of the most flagrant violators.

The US has refused to ratify the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW); and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

And while the US worked with other countries for 50 years to create the International Criminal Court, it has failed to ratify that treaty as well.

Controversy

The protection of human rights, alongside peace and security, and economic and social development has been one of the three pillars of the United Nation's work since its creation.

The organisation has also established a range of mechanisms to promote and protect these rights and to assist governments in meeting their human rights obligations through the UN Human Rights Commission.

The Commission was intended to examine, monitor and publicly report on human rights situations in specific countries or territories as well as on major phenomena of human rights violations worldwide.

But in 2006, the highly-politicised Human Rights Commission which had been dogged by accusations of bias and politicisation was replaced with the Human Rights Council as part of ongoing UN reform.

Ironically, the Human Rights Council has become an arena for tensions between Islamic and Western nations.

"Having watched for five years from within the UN system I tend to apply a little bit what Winston Churchill said about democracy. He said democracy was the worst system except for all the others," Robinson said.

"So the UN is not the greatest system but it is the only one we have."

US allies in "rivalry" with Iran

2010-02-14T12:49:00.000-05:00

By Adla Massoud
Al Jazeera.net / April 28 2009

Vali Nasr, an Iranian-American academic, is serving as senior adviser to Richard Holbrooke, the US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

A professor of International Politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Nasr is best known for his work on Iran and Sunni-Shia tensions in the Middle East.

In a videotaped appeal in March, Barack Obama, the US president offered a "new beginning" in US-Iranian relations, calling for renewed exchanges and greater partnership. Iranian officials said action was needed to repair the relationship, but welcomed his words.

Here, Nasr talks to Al Jazeera about Obama's overtures to Tehran and increasing tension between some Arab states and Hezbollah ahead of crucial elections in Iran and Lebanon.

Al Jazeera: Barack Obama, the US president, has reached out to Iran. Will Iran respond in kind?

Nasr: President Obama's policy is a clear departure from that of the Bush administration in that it is serious about engagement with Iran.

Iranian leaders have been used to dealing with the Bush administration that spoke of engagement but was not serious about. In addition, President Obama enjoys great popularity around the world and even in the Muslim world.

This means that the context for US-Iran relations has radically changed, and that forces Iranian leaders to reassess their policies and goals. I think Iranian leaders are debating how to respond to the Obama administration.

A clear direction will not likely emerge until the presidential elections in June decide the shape of the Iranian government.

Officials of Washington's Arab allies have been warning that Iran's influence in the region is as dangerous to them as its nuclear programme; is this because of a perceived Sunni-Shia rivalry?

The Shia-Sunni rivalry is real. We can see that it has not finished in Iraq. Sectarian violence is making a comeback and even when there was relative calm still the two sides were not reconciled to peace.

Sectarian tensions are also simmering just below the surface in Lebanon and we have seen flare-ups in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia over the course of the past year.

Many of these tensions have local roots, and not everywhere will they break out into larger conflicts. But what makes them more important is that they fit into the larger power rivalry in the region between Iran and its Arab neighbours.

When you have a larger rivalry in a region then smaller conflicts find greater meaning and can be related to one another to impact the outcome of that larger conflict.

In the Middle East, the Shia communities look to Iran as ally, patron and source of support, and Arab rulers have supported Sunni forces opposed to Shia empowerment. So long as the Iranian-Arab rivalry for domination of the Middle East continues, sectarian tensions will continue to have larger geo-strategic significance.

Benyamin Netanyahu, the new Israeli prime minister, is more concerned about the Iran situation than about dealing with the Palestinians. Is Iran a threat?

Iran threatens different countries in different ways. Countries around the Gulf rim fear Iranian hegemony. They fear Iran will dictate terms to them or may encourage their Shia populations into rebellion.

In the Levant, Egypt and Jordan do not fear direct exercise of Iranian power, but are worried about the implications of Iranian interference in issues that they have traditionally held control over, such as the Palestinian issue or Lebanon.

Israel fears a nuclear Iran, not only because Iran may actually use a nuclear weapon against Israel, but also because it will change the balance of military and political power in the region.

In reality Iran's military is not big enough or well-equipped enough to threaten any country. But Iran has done well in using non-state actors like Hamas and Hezbollah to project power, and has been very effective in wooing the Arab street.

If nuclear capability were to be added to the mix then Iran's influence will be even greater. What matters at this stage is that the Arab world and Israel are worried about what a more influential Iran will mean, and in politics perceptions matter.

Will Tehran open up to the international community in the event that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, is not re-elected in June?

President Ahmadinejad has been a divisive figure both inside Iran and internationally. Outside Iran he enjoys great popularity in the Arab world, but has a very negative image in the West.

A new face at the top in Tehran will clearly present fresh opportunities for dialogue and diplomacy even if the positions of various sides do not change fundamentally.

The Lebanese parliamentary elections will be held in June. Seen as a battleground for regional influence, Saudi Arabia and Iran are arming their Lebanese allies with campaign money. Votes are being bought with cash or in-kind services. How important is Lebanon to Iran?

Lebanon is clearly important to Iran only because Hezbollah is important to Iran.

Hezbollah continues to be Iran's only success since 1979 in exporting its revolution to the Arab world. Iran cannot afford (especially now that it is trying to expand its influence in the region) to let Hezbollah lose ground in Lebanon.

There are also strong personal and religious ties between Hezbollah and various powerful elite and organisations in Iran, which means that there are many times that Hezbollah can lobby in Tehran for support and policy.

Iran would also like to use a victory in Lebanon as leverage both against Israel and Syria, as well as by defeating Saudi-backed forces in Lebanon establish that it now is in the driver seat in deciding the direction of Lebanese politics. That would give Iran more leverage in dealing with the US.

What are the regional repercussions should Hezbollah win the elections?

It will underscore two things. First, that non-state actors, equipped with a radical message and rejecting any engagement with Israel enjoy political momentum; and second that Iran has made effective inroads into Arab politics, and that in an important Arab country that was where Arab world fought its own struggles for power in the 1980s now Iran is the more important outside actor.

Several weeks after Egyptian security forces uncovered a Hezbollah cell allegedly planning to carry out attacks in the country, Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president, warned "regional forces" against interfering with his country.

Hezbollah is interested in Gaza, and to have sustained access to Gaza, especially to fund and arm Hamas, Hezbollah needs to have a nucleus of operations in Egypt. Iran's interest is not operational, but much broader, it is strategic.

Iran is now competing with leaders in the Arab world for control of the Palestinian issue, and has used the Gaza war to weaken rivals in Arab capitals.

During the war Iranian press attacked Egypt far more often and more forcefully at times than they criticised Israel. Egypt is a recognised leader of the Arab world and hence Iranian interest in undermining its stance on the Palestinian issue.

Source: Al Jazeera

Dennis Ross: Sharon drove peace efforts

2010-02-14T12:38:00.001-05:00

by Adla Massoud
January 17th, 2006
(Al Jazeera.net)

Ariel Sharon's sudden exit has created a storm of uncertainty in Israeli politics and will very likely affect Palestinian legislative elections later this month.
Fears that the Palestinian elections could be delayed were partly eased when Shaul Mofaz, the Israeli defence minister, said Palestinians would be able to vote in East Jerusalem, a condition demanded by Palestinian authorities for the elections to go ahead.

Israeli officials had threatened to ban voting in East Jerusalem because candidates from Hamas, which advocates Israel's destruction and is considered a terrorist group by Israel, the European Union and the United States, would appear on the ballot.

At the same time, tensions are rising between Hamas and Fatah, the dominant Palestinian political party.

Aljazeera.net's Adla Massoud spoke with Dennis Ross, former US peace envoy to the Middle East, about the effect Sharon's exit will have on prospects for peace in the Middle East.

Aljazeera.net: How might the Middle East political landscape look without the presence of Ariel Sharon?
Dennis Ross: I think that there is a big difference in at least one important respect: With Sharon there for the last couple of years, he's been the driver of basically everything. Everyone has responded to Sharon. The initiatives that come out of Israel, there's been no initiatives from anywhere else. The Bush administration responded to his initiatives.

But I would say the Palestinians did the same. The Palestinians pretty much waited to see what he would do and then in effect responded. Everyone I think had the luxury of seeing what Sharon would do and letting him be the driver of events.

Now, if you take Sharon out of the picture, Sharon is not in a position to be able to continue to be launching initiatives, and that means you cannot be so confident that there will be more initiatives coming out of Israel.

So you're saying Sharon was the only man in the Middle East with a plan?
He was certainly the only one in the Middle East who was acting on a plan. And I don't see anyone else seeming to act as if they first have a plan and then doing something about that plan, at least in terms of trying to promote co-existence. There may be those who have plans that are not about co-existence and maybe are acting on them.

How will the US react to the fact Sharon may no longer play a part in the Middle East road map to peace?
I already think Sharon was very much on his own road. And his own road was unilateral disengagement from Gaza which was not a part of the road map. I believe there was no reason for him to have left the Likud party unless he was determined to take additional steps in the West Bank. He had very low expectations about the Palestinians.

I think the better Hamas does [in the elections] in the sense, the more it would have added to his low expectations about the Palestinians. I think there would have been some additional withdrawal from the West Bank but it would have come on terms the Palestinians might not have liked, in terms of giving Americans agreement on the settlement blocks, concretely not vaguely.

And also giving the Americans agreement on the redefinition of Jerusalem. So, in a sense, what you have is, with Ariel Sharon out of the picture, you're less likely to see additional initiatives related to the West Bank anytime soon.

Why do you say Sharon had very low expectations of the Palestinians?
Because I think he did not see them doing very much. I know from my own experience, he viewed Abu Mazin [Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president] personally as someone who had good intentions but he also perceived him as someone who was not very capable of acting on those intentions.

From Sharon's standpoint, he did not see the Palestinians really doing anything to transform the situation with regard to the infrastructure of terror. He also did not see them doing much to govern themselves effectively.

Palestinians in Gaza are extremely fragmented. I think there haven't been decisions taken to decide between the young guard and old guard of Fatah. I think Fatah itself has lost credibility, because the Palestinian Authority (PA) hasn't delivered much, because the international community has made promises but has not delivered on the promises.

A lot could have been done in the past year to build the authority of the PA and Abu Mazin's authority to show that his way of non-violence actually worked but all the pledges remained pledges and did not materialise on the ground.

The Palestinians could have done much more to get their act together but they sure did not get much help from the international community to do so.

Israel has an ailing leader and the Palestinians have an ailing administration. Do you think the US should be doing more?
Yes. On the Israeli side, things are now going to have to be geared towards the internal realities related to sorting things out and positioning themselves for the elections.

A lot more should have been done not only by the US and the international community in the past year but also by the Arab world that has money to help Palestinian development and that was just not forthcoming.

The UAE and Saudi Arabia made promises to finance the construction of 4200 housing units that would have provided lots of jobs, but unfortunately it did not materialise. It could have made a huge difference. Much more needed to be done in the past year.

Now in the aftermath of the Palestinian elections, there should be an intensive effort made to help the Palestinians get their act together. There ought to be a work plan put together with new policies, there ought to be an empowered prime minister, there ought to be help from the outside both financially and even on the security area where support for the security services needs to become much more systematic.

And there ought to be a public posture on the part of the United States and the Arab world to help the Palestinians take new steps.

There needs to be a priority given certainly in the two-month period between the Palestinian elections and the Israeli elections (28 March) to help the Palestinians put their house in order because the more they do, the more it will have a favourable effect on what happens in the upcoming Israeli elections.

The less done, the more it will feed a strong unilateralist impulse on the Israeli side. Unilateralism produces outcomes and not solutions.

Hamas is running for the Palestinian Legislative elections and it looks set to win. And Likud could win the Israeli elections. Will it still be possible for a peace agreement to develop?
Likud in the past has taken steps. I negotiated the Hebron accord (Israeli redeployment from Hebron and handover of the city to Palestinian forces) with Likud [in 1997].

It's not like they can't do things. But Hamas will have to prove that it's committed to co-existence and not to an ongoing struggle.

I would say if you have an outcome where the right in each place wins, then the future is pretty grim.

Ehud Olmert is seen as a weak replacement to Ariel Sharon. Do you think he can lead Kadima to win the next Israeli general elections?
He has some built-in advantages because number one, he is the acting prime minister when there was a natural coalescence at this time. Number two; he really is Sharon's natural successor. He in many ways is the actual grandfather of disengagement as a principal and he was [ahead] of Sharon on the issue of disengagement. So he is the natural successor from that point of view.

Certainly he doesn't have Sharon's stature or built-in credibility on issues like security. What the security climate would look like will also strongly influence the elections.

If you look at the history of what affects Israeli elections, it's very much the climate, the level of violence or the absence of it. Now on the Palestinian side they have to decide what kind of treaty they want [with the Israelis].

With the old guard of political leaders out of the way and with new blood taking over, can the power of youth transform the region?
Bashar al-Assad [the Syrian president] has hardly proved to be progressive and he's young. So in Syria you don't have a leadership that seems progressive or able to make change in a positive direction.

Elsewhere you see younger leaders who seem more capable of trying to promote changes, certainly King Abdullah of Jordan and King Mohammed of Morocco and also Shaikh Maktum bin Rashid al-Maktum in Dubai.

There you see younger leaders more capable of trying to promote change. Change is never easy.

Look at the struggle between the young guard of Fatah and the old guard of Fatah. The old guard wants to preserve its power and privileges and has no interest in serving the Palestinian public. They are only interested in preserving their own positions. The young guard is much closer to the grassroots and understand the need for change but the old guard resist them every step of the way.

Then why doesn't the US support the young guard?
Well I would like to see the US support the young guard. I'd like to see much more done in terms of that. I think when we say we support change and democratisation and reform, we should be identifying more strongly with these kinds of figures everywhere. And that certainly should be the case with the young guard of Fatah.