America Vs Muslim World

Osama at the Top of His Game

2010-10-31T01:03:00.000-07:00

On October 27, 2010, Al Jazeera television network broadcasted a new audiotape by Osama bin Laden meant to exploit the Muslim world’s growing anger toward France specifically, and against Europe generally. Defending the recent kidnapping of five French nationals in Niger, bin Laden said the act was an appropriate response to France’s ongoing intervention in the affairs of Muslims in North and West Africa; its persecution of Muslim women in France via its ban on burqa wearing; and the presence of 3,500 French troops in Afghanistan. Bin Laden warned Paris that it is foolish to think France’s anti-Muslim actions would go unanswered by al-Qaeda and other mujahideen. “The equation is very clear and simple,” bin Laden said, stressing, as he always does, the justice of reciprocal treatment in wartime. “[T]he fault lies with the one who initiates [the hostilities]. . . . as you kill, you will be killed; as you abduct, so shall you be abducted; as you ruin our [Muslim] security, so shall we ruin your security.”

The new message is vintage bin Laden in several ways. With the United States and Britain, France has always been high on al-Qaeda’s target list because of its discriminatory treatment of French Muslims; its support for the Algerian regime against the country’s insurgents; its military aid to West African regimes; and its Afghanistan presence. In addition, since 2006 bin Laden and al-Qaeda have highlighted their intention to bring the jihad to the Niger-Nigeria –Gulf of Guinea area to “liberate” Muslims there from the anti-Islamic policies that European governments force their “agent regimes” in West Africa to apply. And as he has argued regarding the Arab Peninsula’s energy resources, bin Laden insists that West Africa’s oil, uranium and other natural resources are the property of the Muslim ummah (community of believers) and that the mujahideen intend to end the West’s control of them.

While using familiar themes, the timing of bin Laden’s message is meant to exploit several current realities favoring al-Qaeda and other jihadis:

France and most western European states are on high alert because of credible intelligence that bin Laden has authorized Mumbai-like attacks in their cities. With this threat already on the table, bin Laden is trying to enhance fears among publics, politicians and security services, and force them to continue high levels of counterterrorism spending.

—Bin Laden intends the message to praise and spur on fighters who make up al-Qaeda’s forces, and those of its allies, in North and West Africa. The past few years have seen al-Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb (AQIM) continue its insurgency in Algeria, as well as expand its operational reach in Mauritania, Mali and elsewhere in West Africa. Al-Qaeda also has gotten a pledge of loyalty from a growing Islamist militant group in Nigeria known as Boko Haram. Bin Laden’s message signals al-Qaeda’s support for these groups; stresses its intention to continue inspiring jihadism in West Africa and across the continent; and bears witness to al-Qaeda’s growing martial capabilities in West Africa.

Bin Laden also highlights NATO’s deteriorating position in Afghanistan and reminds France and other NATO states that they will all pay a price for occupying a Muslim country. This aspect of the talk is fully in keeping with bin Laden’s quite successful post-9/11 effort to strip away countries from the coalitions Washington led into Iraq and Afghanistan. In this message, he refers to the latter as “Bush‘s accursed war.”

And while bin Laden does not focus on the United States in this message, its release six days before the U.S. midterm elections is not a coincidence. Bin Laden’s words are meant to remind U.S. voters that he is still alive and al-Qaeda is quite viable; that the Obama administration is, like Bush’s, losing the Afghan war; and that the war—with the Iraq War—has pushed the United States to “the verge of bankruptcy in all major areas, and soon it will go back beyond the Atlantic Ocean, Allah willing.”

Less noticeable to the public, but surely most worrying to U.S. policy makers is the message’s clear indication that al-Qaeda’s presence and strength is growing in the oil-rich Gulf of Guinea region, from which America will be importing 20 percent of its crude in the next several years.

Finally, for those who argue bin Laden is irrelevant, French Defense Minister Hervé Morin unexpectedly said on October 28, 2010, that “our troops may leave Afghanistan next year . . . we can transfer responsibilities to the Afghans in 2011.” This positive (appeasing?) response to bin Laden’s threat is even quicker than the Spanish government’s cave-in after the Madrid bombings.

Culture & Fashion: Latest Fashion News of the day

2010-10-31T00:38:00.000-07:00

Culture & Fashion: Latest Fashion News of the day: "From `Camp’ to fall fashion: stars choose top trend Few belongings get Meaghan Martin and Chloe bridge going like a little back-to-school ..."

http;//www.newsviews.eu http://www.globallink.biz.tc http://googleadsense.webnode.com http://funnycollection.weebly.com http://funnycollect.blogspot.comhttp://celefazer.blogspot.com http://safdaresoft.blogspot.comhttp://howweearn.blogspot.com http://americavsmuslimworld.blogspot.comhttp://onlineearningmoneysites.blogspot.comhttp://celefazer.blogspot.com http://usamericaol.blogspot.com

Israel vs. Obama and the Muslim World

2009-11-03T00:04:00.000-08:00

Custom Search

he election of US President Barack Obama and Israel's Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu has changed the dynamics of the American-Israeli relationship.

On the other hand, the growing Taliban influence in Pakistan, the continued Iranian efforts to further develop its nuclear program, and the inability of the United States to win the war in Afghanistan have complicated US policymaking and strategic thinking.

In fact, the Obama administration is yet to formulate a strategy to deal with the many challenges it faces in the Middle East.

Nevertheless, President Obama's deeds and pronouncements indicate a strong commitment to resolve the Arab-Israel conflict in its entirety, and to open a dialogue with Iran without preconditions.

The recent Washington meeting between Obama and Netanyahu has demonstrated that the views of the two men are different; and their priorities are contradictory.

Obama won because of his attitude, "Yes We Can" change America, while Netanyahu won because of his attitude, "No to peace and to Palestinian statehood."

One Goal, Conflicting Means
Obama did not only contradict Netanyahu, but also he charted the course for Arab leaders to follow.

This is not a recipe for convergence of views or interests, but for a conflict and an arm twisting. In fact, the change in American attitudes towards Israel started two decades ago; however, the Israeli Lobby, the US Congress, and Arab governments' inaction have managed to keep that change hidden from the public eyes and minds.

When Obama and Netanyahu met in Washington, they had two major issues of mutual concern to discuss; peacemaking in Palestine and stopping the Iranian nuclear program. They also saw a clear connection between the two issues. Netanyahu said that Iran's nuclear ambitions are a serious threat to world peace and to the survival of both Israel and "moderate" Arab states.

As a consequence, he tried to convince Obama that dealing with Iran must have priority over all other issues.

Obama, in contrast, saw the connection the other way around; lack of progress in making peace is a primary cause helping Iran increase its political and ideological influence in the region.

Therefore, solving the Arab-Israeli conflict must have priority over other issues.

Obama's thinking is strategic as he called for a comprehensive settlement, saying that solving the Palestinian problem is "critical to regional stability", and the establishment of a Palestinian state is in the interest of Israel, the United States, and world community.

He also said that settlement activities "have to be stopped." By doing so, Obama did not only contradict Netanyahu, but also he charted the course for Arab leaders to follow.

Since Israel depends heavily on US political backing and military and financial support, it cannot pursue goals that contradict America's strategic views and perceived interests. Israel will have to acquiesce to America's wishes.

Nevertheless, Obama's sailing will not be smooth or easy, because Israel and its allies and proxies in Washington have already started an intensive media campaign, using political and media pressure to intimidate and stop Obama.

Arab Regimes: The Key to Success
Neither Israelis nor Palestinians are able to articulate a peace plan or make a credible offer for a settlement.

Israel's chances of success, however, are dim unless Arab leaders rush to rescue Netanyahu and his plan.

For a long time, Israeli politicians were allowed to identify problems and determine priorities regarding Middle East issues in general and the Arab-Israeli conflict in particular.

But, with Obama in charge, the rules of the game have changed; the United States is now taking the lead and Obama is determined to succeed.

The objective of the Israeli campaign is to convince the American public and policymakers in Washington that history shows that attempts to settle the Arab-Israeli conflict are destined to fail; and that there is no urgency to deal with this issue right now.

It argues further that devoting much attention to the Arab-Israeli conflict will deprive the United States of valuable time it needs to deal with more pressing issues, like Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan issues, as well as the need to contain the influence of Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

Moreover, the campaign says that Israelis and Palestinians should be left alone to negotiate a peace settlement. Underlining this message, Netanyahu declared readiness to resume negotiations with the Palestinians.

However, leaving Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate a settlement, even with US help, is not an option, because both parties have demonstrated their inability to do so.

Neither Israelis nor Palestinians are able to articulate a peace plan or make a credible offer for a settlement.

And, because of political fragmentation and ideological infighting within each camp, hopes that Israelis and Palestinians could somehow make peace are unrealistic.

In fact, because Israel has a divided society and a divided government, it cannot sign a peace settlement even if the deal mirrors the expressed ideas of Netanyahu.

Due to US unconditional and undisciplined support of Israel, articulating a comprehensive settlement to the Arab Israeli conflict has become the responsibility of the US President, and no one else.

Arab leaders need to make this point clear and to press Obama to take the initiative and articulate his vision in a policy statement committing US prestige and resources to achieving peace.

A settlement proposed by the United States and backed by the international community including the United Nations, is the only feasible way to achieve peace. It gives leaders on all sides an opportunity to accept it, and leaves them no options to escape.

Obama's Prospects of Success
Arab rulers must understand that the United States cannot and will not attack Iran

How good are Obama's chances of success? No one knows.

Yet the American public has become less antagonistic to consider Arab grievances and Muslim ideas.

While "Islamic terrorism" did not materialize and the much anticipated "Islamic enemy" could not be created, Bush's and Cheney's claims have been exposed as pure lies, and torture policies are no longer privileged state secrets.

But for Obama to succeed, he needs help from the international community, and particularly the Arab leaders.

If Arab rulers adopt the Netanyahu argument that Iran poses a greater threat to their security, they will be working with Netanyahu against Obama, thus putting their future in Netanyahu's hands.

Furthermore, if the Palestinian Authority agrees to reengage Netanyahu in a fruitless negotiation process, Obama might find himself obliged to go along.

If either scenario becomes a reality, the-once-in-a-life-time possibility to achieve a comprehensive peace settlement will be lost.

Arab leaders cannot convince Obama to change his mind.

Pressuring him to do so, however, will lead to increasing Iran's influence in the region, and will strengthen its strategic position vis à vis Arabs. While in case Arab rulers become Israel's protégés, they will loose whatever public support and international respect they may have.

Arab regimes that choose to ally themselves with Netanyahu will be forced to abdicate their sovereignty and accept being transformed into Israeli protectorates, having no rights to protect national or even familial interests.

Arab rulers must understand that the United States cannot and will not attack Iran, at least for years to come. The United States faces several serious problems; a largely winless and costly war in Afghanistan, a very dangerous and messy situation in Pakistan, and unfinished war in Iraq.

US military is stretched to its limits, with a deep economic and social crisis.

In addition, there is no guarantee that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities will end Iran's nuclear program.

In fact, the chances of a nuclear state (Pakistan) becoming "fundamentalist" in the short run are much feasible than the chances of a "fundamentalist" state (Iran) becoming nuclear.

An attack on Iran is more likely to provoke a strong reaction by Iran and its regional supporters, causing unexpected human suffering, material damage, widespread terrorism, and a prolonged war of attrition in the entire region.

Arabs must take full advantage of Obama's presidency, and tell him that they will help get other Muslim states to normalize relations with Israel as King Abdullah of Jordan had suggested, but cannot do so until Israel signs a comprehensive peace treaty and withdraws from the territories it has occupied since 1967.

Arab leaders must show leadership by joining ranks; speaking in one voice, and demonstrating resolve and determination to work with Obama to win the peace before the extremist forces on both sides win the last word.

Dr. Mohamed Rabie is a professor of International political economy. He lived and studied in four continents; published 22 books and more than 50 academic papers. He taught or lectured at more than 30 universities and participated in over 70 conferences worldwide. His writings and interests reflect commitment to peace, freedom, social, and economic development, and dialogue among different peoples and cultures. For more on his bio and work, check his personal website: www.yazour.com
what is this?
This widget will help you to store, organize, search, and manage your favorite online content through a range of social bookmarking services. These services permit users to save links to websites that they want to remember and/or share. These bookmarks are usually public, but can be saved privately, shared only with specified people or groups, or shared only inside certain networks. Authorized people can usually view these bookmarks chronologically, by category or tags, or through a search engine. Most social bookmarking services also permit their users to vote and rank public bookmarks to determine which are the best ones according to the number of votes they get.
Send to a friend Send content to your friend

Jamat-e-Islami referendum on Kerry-Lugar bill begins

2009-11-01T07:03:00.000-08:00

The referendum organized by the Jamaat-e-Islami on Kerry-Lugar bill has started countrywide to assess the nation’s view in this regard.

It is learnt through Jamat-e-Islami party’s sources that more than 5,000 polling stations have been set up throughout the country and 45 million ballots have been printed for the referendum.

The sources said that the party secretary general Liaquat Baloch would act as the chief referendum commissioner and provincial heads of the party as provincial commissioners.
Districts, tehsils and union councils-level office-bearers of the party will supervise the voting process. Jamat-e-Islami Ameer Syed Munawar Hasan will cast his vote in Lahore, the party said.