This assessment does not make any sense. So, the above paragraph suggests that Palestinians are now free from very same countries who provide money/food/other support which allows them to buy food and survive. Wow, Palestinians are now going to buy arms using the savings they earned by working for Israeli firms who eventually makes products/services sold to the rest of the world. And, by the way, this new state of Palestine, how does it provide jobs I may ask? in addition, what makes one conclude that US diplomacy really lost? Why would not one wish to have a Palestine survive so it stays as a permanent pain for Israel, the way Pakistan is kept alive to maintain permanent pain for India.NightWatch For the night of 29 November 2012 wrote:
State of Palestine: The United Nations General Assembly on Thursday voted to upgrade the status of the Palestinian Authority. Henceforth, the UN will treat the Authority as a non-member observer state, instead of as an entity. The vote was 138 delegates in favor of the measure, nine against and 41 abstentions.
Comment: US State Department and the US Permanent Representative to the UN have been humiliated in one of the worst defeats of US diplomacy in the modern era. The US diplomats failed to persuade US allies to vote with the US. It is a setback for Israel's negotiating position.
Some news pundits have called it a symbolic victory. Actually that is quite wide of the mark. The Palestinian State will now be an equal - in the UN - negotiating partner with Israel, rather than an inferior.
The positions of the negotiators are forever changed. As a state, Palestine is entitled to a much wider range of international support than as an entity. It is freed from dependence on the largesse of Arab states, the US, the West and non-governmental organizations. It has the authority to negotiate on its own, without Israel permission.
It also may be recognized as a belligerent by other states, entitling it to provision of arms. It also means that Israel's sea blockade of Gaza may be judged an act of war, rather than an act to contain a renegade entity. Airspace controls also may be affected. As for ground borders, Egypt can negotiate with the Palestinian state about how to control the border in Sinai, rather than with Israel.
Palestine also can negotiate directly with Iran and Sudan to ensure the supply of arms through Egypt. No UN member needs, ex officio, to work with or through Israel, henceforth, in dealing with or helping the Palestinians.
This is a diplomatic and strategic calamity for the US Department of State and its UN mission and for Israel. Its full consequences will become clearer over time, but US national security interests have taken a major hit.
currently many of them do not have any money to buy their flight tickets back. 
- there's a translation done by some dude for whom English is a second language, and Arabic probably first. It's better that way, you get the spirit of it better...LoL! You obviously haven't even read into the issue. Ignorance is bliss as they say. You know if you get caught as an illegal immigrant in any country - you are usually fined, jailed and deported (you have to pay the airline not the govt). The fine in the UAE is 100AED per day you over stay plus another 200AED, if you can't pay this - you will sit in jail for a period until you come to some arrangement. So the UAE has said no fine - just leave within the period, if you don't leave within this period you will be jailed and fined as per the law.RamaY wrote:http://www.khaleejtimes.com/displayarti ... ional&col=
Strategic Relationship of India and GCC at display
Nearly 40,000 illegal immigrants from India in UAE are asked to leave or face jail time. These Indians are either in UAE illegally or overstaying their Visas.
Okay assuming that what you are saying is true, If you are saying that Indians don't have to pay the fines and other nationals do, then this is good news - unless you want your brothers sitting in jail and coughing up their earnings in fines?The interesting point is, apparently only Indian illegal immigrants are forced to leave. No other nationalities are treated the same.
Probably the only valid point you raised here is the way people from kerala are treated as compared to other states. A central minister has already complained about Haj services and the embassy being staffed by keralites giving more help to pilgrims from Kerala than other states.A one way ticket from UAE India costs ~10k, so a 40k tickets would mean Rs 40 crores. This is only a percentage of the money GoI pays for Haj Subsidies but these expatriates are not Muslims to avail such secular schemes.
The most interesting point is the central minister Vayalar Ravi is trying hard to help the people from Kerala and even sent a minister (state?) for this efforts. He asked the ~10k people from Andhra Pradesh to take care of themselves or seek help from their state govt.
So you are still sticking with 'sunni jihad is going bad' in Syria and everyone else who claims remotely that the rebels are winning are all liars?brihaspati wrote:At long last and after a long gap, a success story for FSA reported on the thread. So when is the Islamist planned getting hands on Assads family for mandatory Sunni/Saudi Islamist battlefield treatment of women and children - slated for? What are the highest level inner sources saying?
B,At the beginning, if they needed more militarily powerful non-Muslim entity's help, they have pretended non-Islamist concerns so that non-Muslim suspicions can be allayed [or excuses can be provided to those among the non-Muslim who have psychological or material agenda to support Islamists - to fight against suspicious or reluctant non-Muslims]
Modernity isn't all good though - it is also a source of problems. The 19th-20th century model of nationalism is industrial in nature. Its all about building moulds of identity that citizens must fit into or face punishment or even destruction if they do not. Nationalism without participatory democracy has been terrible for minorities everywhere, not just in the Muslim world.(3) all have increased Islamization and sharification of politics and society
(4) all have served their bit for the global conversion effort and increasingly erased non-Muslim cultural remnants or presence
(5) Regardless of initial secular pretensions, none preserved secularism or tolerance of the non-Muslim.
I had said that this war was not going to be over soon, and Sunni Jihad was not going to get it easy in Syria. You are personally overjoyed at every gain of Sunni jihad, so just applauded your return with good news for your obviously favoured side [you have consistently reported or quoted Sunni jihad's "progress", or if they were apparently setbacks, you wrapped them as tactical "retreats". Reported about Assad "atrocities", but not on Sunni jihadi atrocities. etc., etc.]shyamd wrote:So you are still sticking with 'sunni jihad is going bad' in Syria and everyone else who claims remotely that the rebels are winning are all liars?brihaspati wrote:At long last and after a long gap, a success story for FSA reported on the thread. So when is the Islamist planned getting hands on Assads family for mandatory Sunni/Saudi Islamist battlefield treatment of women and children - slated for? What are the highest level inner sources saying?
You are assuming that deception has to be centrally managed and organized. You are also assuming that deception was about deceiving other muslims primarily. In the case of Islam, deception has become so integrated as part of culture, that there is no awareness of it as deception when it is applied to any representation, communication to the wider non-Muslim world. The Muslim world has always fought and argued against each other, about their internal power equations - but it does not change one single bit theie attitude towards the non-muslim.Johann wrote:B,["At the beginning, if they needed more militarily powerful non-Muslim entity's help, they have pretended non-Islamist concerns so that non-Muslim suspicions can be allayed [or excuses can be provided to those among the non-Muslim who have psychological or material agenda to support Islamists - to fight against suspicious or reluctant non-Muslims"]
A lot of what you're saying is premised on the idea of deception of united Muslim front against non-Muslims as a whole, and a purely top-down approach.
The facts as I've seen them on the ground, and following the public sphere in Arabic, Persian and Urdu English and French is that Muslims spend FAR more time fighting and arguing each with other.
The presentation of these elite as "seculars" is not entirely correct. It was an invention of western propaganda to justify support for very reactionary, and essentially still islamist regimes. In almost every ME and North African Islamist domain, the mosques were maintained, and more importantly the Islamist educational and propaganda infrastructure was well maintained and even sponsored by these very same elite.The fact is that most Muslim countries, like most de-colonised countries have seen some development, but absolutely terrible governance overall. In the case of Muslim countries it was usually by a self-described secular elite, so its not surprising that pre-Colonial systems seem like something that ought to be tried.
Modernity is not unifromly attractive - for it is extremely disruptive to the simple, biologically primed power-relations based structure of Islam. You will see that the essential conflict in the ME over modernity is not over consumption goods, or technology itself, it is about the fundamental infrastructure of knowledge creation that leads to such consmuption goods. Modernity is about problematization and exploration of given alternatives, and not submission to presumed claims or beliefs. Muslims have always wanted the products of that exploration, but they have consistently rejected the infrastructure for that exploration - which goes completely against Islam.However, there is an inherent limit to what the Islamists can achieve. Something else that I've seen in the way that Muslims interact with Muslims and argue about past present and future is that modernity is profoundly attractive - so attractive that they're terrified of losing their identity and their faith in it.
So 'non-Islamist' values aren't a deception - they are a reflection of that hodge-podge of lived experience in a world that is largely shaped by the wealth, technology and governing frameworks of non-Muslims, and which most Muslims respect and envy.
Modernity is costly in terms of intellectual load, and potentially subversive in such crucial obsessions of Islam - which is about possession and use of female bodies, enslavement of the non-Muslim, and a simple animalistic dominance-submission hierarchy of social organization.The vast majority of Muslims are looking for some way to combine modernity with the preservation of 'Muslimness'. They've tried to operate on a buffet basis, picking and choosing what they like, or what seems relevant in the modern world.
The Islamic activists, whether clerical or non-clerical are constantly trying to take advantage of this by borrowing concepts or innovations of the non-Muslim world and trying to install them in a purely hermetically sealed Islamic context. Even the idea of sharia law as most Islamists want it - a body of codified laws issued by the executive or legislative is profoundly alien to traditional Islam and based on a modern/Western model. The Saudi clerics who railed against television as an invention of the devil have now embraced delivering sermons via the telly, but they must coexist next to channels filled with unveiled women.
In every case, the fundamental conditioning that is almost totalitarian in nature in every Islamic community - predestines every clash with "subversive" element of modernity - towards jihad. It leads more to rejection of modernity in ideological terms as much as a near-gloating adoption of the tools of modernity to intensify that jihad.The Islamists keep trying to rally, but the meaning of what they ask for keeps getting watered down by Muslims themselves. Commerce, technology and politics are a deeply subversive combination that faith and identity can only partially co-opt.
Modernity should not be confused with "nation-states". Moreover participatory democracy is no guarantee of protection of "minority" rights, as shown in Bangladesh. Nationalists should not be equated to Islamists. islamists are tansnationalists in their long term agenda, and nationalists only as short term tactical moves.Modernity isn't all good though - it is also a source of problems. The 19th-20th century model of nationalism is industrial in nature. Its all about building moulds of identity that citizens must fit into or face punishment or even destruction if they do not. Nationalism without participatory democracy has been terrible for minorities everywhere, not just in the Muslim world.(3) all have increased Islamization and sharification of politics and society
(4) all have served their bit for the global conversion effort and increasingly erased non-Muslim cultural remnants or presence
(5) Regardless of initial secular pretensions, none preserved secularism or tolerance of the non-Muslim.
That's why communities, cultural practices and artifacts that survived for thousands of years have been wiped out over the last century. The good news is that the idealised relationship between the citizen, society and the state is changing. Much to the gnashing of teeth of old fashioned nationalists.
Lol - I knew you would come out with "you are overjoyed" line - because thats all you have - nothing about rhetoric. You stuck your head out and posted on several threads that Sunni jihad is not going well bla bla bla and everyone else is lieing. I think we can all see who the real liar is - with evidence.brihaspati wrote: I had said that this war was not going to be over soon, and Sunni Jihad was not going to get it easy in Syria. You are personally overjoyed at every gain of Sunni jihad, so just applauded your return with good news for your obviously favoured side [you have consistently reported or quoted Sunni jihad's "progress", or if they were apparently setbacks, you wrapped them as tactical "retreats". Reported about Assad "atrocities", but not on Sunni jihadi atrocities. etc., etc.
By the way, I asked a very simple question : when is the Islamist planned getting hands on Assads family for mandatory Sunni/Saudi Islamist battlefield treatment of women and children - slated for? What are the highest level inner sources saying?
LOL! You make out I control the public exposure on such matters and the media - just shows how mentally deluded you are!Your sources are not saying anything about this? Or do you think such info will show your favoured side in a bad light or public exposure may force backers to bring pressure on the jihadis not to do so?
.Taking great pains to hit back with rhetoric/insults - when a person is proven wrong they usually make these sort of petty accusations.In that case we have to assume that you personally would rejoice in such an outcome and do not want to jeopardize it.
[/quote]On the other hand, any public info on this form your inner, higher level sources, could actually point to confidence in success by the jihadis and might even help the cause you favour by demoralizing Assad. There is nothing to worry about - no western backer of Saudi/Sunni jihad have ever needed to feel shy of what jihadis do to their victims - its taken as part of "religion and culture".
Its funny how you are telling me what cause I actually favour. Isn't that funny? Everyone can see what you are trying to do - when proven wrong you throw accusations/rhetoric/insults rather than talk about what is happening in Syria and actually provide evidence. you are ready to lie as well - which you admitted to doing earlier. By ANNE BARNARD
Published: November 8, 2012
BEIRUT, Lebanon — Syria’s rebel fighters — who have long staked claim to the moral high ground for battling dictatorship — are losing crucial support from a public increasingly disgusted by the actions of some rebels, including poorly planned missions, senseless destruction, criminal behavior and the coldblooded killing of prisoners.
The shift in mood presents more than just a public relations problem for the loosely knit militants of the Free Syrian Army, who rely on their supporters to survive the government’s superior firepower. A dampening of that support undermines the rebels’ ability to fight and win what has become a devastating war of attrition, perpetuating the violence that has left nearly 40,000 dead, hundreds of thousands in refugee camps and more than a million forced from their homes.
The rebel shortcomings have been compounded by changes in the opposition, from a force of civilians and defected soldiers who took up arms after the government used lethal force on peaceful protesters to one that is increasingly seeded with extremist jihadis. That radicalization has divided the fighters’ supporters and made Western nations more reluctant to give rebels the arms that might help break the intensifying deadlock. Instead, foreign leaders are struggling to find indirect ways to help oust Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad.
And now arrogance and missteps are draining enthusiasm from some of the fighters’ core supporters.
“They were supposed to be the people on whom we depend to build a civil society,” lamented a civilian activist in Saraqib, a northern town where rebels were videotaped executing a group of unarmed Syrian soldiers, an act the United Nations has declared a likely war crime. An activist in Aleppo, Ahmed, who like some of the others who were interviewed gave only one name for security reasons, said he had begged rebels not to camp in a neighborhood telecommunications office. But they did, and government attacks knocked out phone service.
One fighter shot into the air when customers at a bakery did not let him cut into a long line for bread, Ahmed recalled. Another, he said, was enraged when a man washing his car accidentally splashed him. “He shot at him,” Ahmed said. “But thank God he wasn’t a good shot, so the guy wasn’t hurt.”
Twenty months into what is now a civil war, both supporters and opponents of the government are trapped in a darkening mood of despair, revulsion and fear that neither side can end the conflict. In recent months, both sides adopted more brutal — even desperate — methods to try to break the stalemate, but they achieved merely a new version of deadlock. To many Syrians, the extreme violence seems all the more pointless for the lack of results.
The most significant shift is among the rebels’ supporters, who chant slogans not only condemning the government but also criticizing the rebels. “The people want the reform of the Free Syrian Army,” crowds have called out. “We love you. Correct your path.”
Small acts of petty humiliation and atrocities like executions have led many more Syrians to believe that some rebels are as depraved as the government they fight. The activist from Saraqib said he saw rebels force government soldiers from a milk factory, then destroy it, even though residents needed the milk and had good relations with the owner. “They shelled the factory and stole everything,” the activist said. “Those are repulsive acts.”
Even some of the uprising’s staunchest supporters are beginning to fear that Syria’s sufferings — lost lives, fraying social fabric, destroyed heritage — are for naught. “We thought freedom was so near,” said a fighter calling himself Abu Ahmed, his voice catching with grief as he spoke via Skype last month from Maarat al-Noaman, a strategic town on the Aleppo-Damascus highway. Hours earlier, a rebel victory there ended in disaster, as government airstrikes pulverized civilians returning to what they thought was safety.
“This shows it was a big lie,” Abu Ahmed said of the dream of self-government that he said had inspired him to lead a small rebel fighting group from his nearby village, Sinbol. “We cannot reach it. We can’t even think of democracy — we will be sad for years. We are losing victims from both sides.”
A chain of calamities has fueled disgust and frustration on all sides, dozens of interviews with Syrians show. In July, a rebel bombing killed four senior officials in a heavily guarded Damascus building, bringing new insecurity to government supporters. The rebels’ growing use of large bombs that kill bystanders spurred concerns on both sides.
Poorly executed rebel offensives brought harsh consequences. In September, rebels launched an offensive in Syria’s largest city, Aleppo, an ancient town that stood for centuries as the proud legacy of all Syrians. The fighting failed to achieve the turning point the rebels had promised.
The government, trying to curb soldiers’ defections and reduce the strain on the military, kept more forces on bases and turned to air power and artillery, flattening neighborhoods with abandon. But the change in strategy did not restore control or security. After seeing a rebel bombing and small-arms attack on a downtown Damascus government building, a chauffeur for a wealthy businessman complained that conspicuous security measures made him “live in fear” — without being effective.
“I want someone from the government to answer me,” he said. “The government cannot protect its key military and security buildings, so how can it protect us and run the country?” Even within Mr. Assad’s most solid base, his minority Alawite sect, discontent spilled over last month in a clash that began in a coffee shop in the president’s ancestral village, Qardaha. Some were shaken recently by heavy casualties in the disproportionately Alawite military and militias, according to Fadi Saad, who runs a Facebook page called Alawites in the Syrian Revolution.
On the rebel side, the Aleppo battle catalyzed simmering frustrations among civilian activists who feel dominated by gunmen. One Aleppo activist said she met with fighters to suggest ways to cut government supply routes without destroying the city, to no avail. “You risked the lives of the people for what?” the activist asked. “The Free Syrian Army is just cutting the nails of the regime. We want results.”
Nominal leaders of the Free Syrian Army say they embrace ethical standards, contend that the government commits the vast majority of abuses and blame rogue groups for bad rebel behavior. But that did not ease the disgust after last week’s video. It shows men writhing on the ground, staring up and screaming in terror. Rebels stand over them, shouting a cacophony of orders and insults. They move like a gang, not a military unit, jostling and crowding, kicking prisoners, forcing them into a pile. Suddenly, automatic weapons fire drowns out the noise. Puffs of dust rise from the pile, now still.
“All the ugly stuff the regime practiced, the F.S.A. is copying,” Anna, a finance worker in Damascus, said of recent behavior. She blamed the government for making society abusive, but she said the rebels were no better. “They are ignorant people with weapons,” she said.
In Maarat al-Noaman after the airstrikes, the disappointed fighter, Abu Ahmed, said Syrians would weep to see destruction in the city of “our famous poet and philosopher,” Abu al-Alaa al-Ma’arri. The poet, a skeptic and rationalist born in the 10th century and buried in the town, wrote often of disillusion, and of the fallibility of would-be heroes: “How many times have our feet trodden beneath the dust / A brow of the arrogant, a skull of the debonair?” Abu Ahmed said he found the town’s mosaic museum looted and littered first by soldiers, then by rebels. “I saw bodies of both rebels and regime forces, I saw beer bottles,” he said. “Honestly, honestly, words are stuck in my mouth.”
Hala Droubi contributed reporting from Beirut, and an employee of The New York Times from Aleppo and Damascus, Syria.
Follow on report from above by GuardianBy MICHAEL R. GORDON, ERIC SCHMITT and TIM ARANGO.
WASHINGTON — The American effort to stem the flow of Iranian arms to Syria has faltered because of Iraq’s reluctance to inspect aircraft carrying the weapons through its airspace, American officials say.
The shipments have persisted at a critical time for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, who has come under increasing military pressure from rebel fighters. The air corridor over Iraq has emerged as a main supply route for weapons, including rockets, antitank missiles, rocket-propelled grenade and mortars.
Iran has an enormous stake in Syria, which is its staunchest Arab ally and has also provided a channel for Iran’s support to the Lebanese Islamist movement Hezbollah.
To the disappointment of the Obama administration, American efforts to persuade the Iraqis to randomly inspect the flights have been largely unsuccessful.
Adding to American concerns, Western intelligence officials say they are picking up new signs of activity at sites in Syria that are used to store chemical weapons. The officials are uncertain whether Syrian forces might be preparing to use the weapons in a last-ditch effort to save the government, or simply sending a warning to the West about the implications of providing more help to the Syrian rebels.
“It’s in some ways similar to what they’ve done before,” a senior American official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters. “But they’re doing some things that suggest they intend to use the weapons. It’s not just moving stuff around. These are different kind of activities.”
The official said, however, that the Syrians had not carried out the most blatant steps toward using the chemical weapons, such as preparing them to be fired by artillery batteries or loaded in bombs to be dropped from warplanes.
Regarding the arms shipments, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton secured a commitment from Iraq’s foreign minister in September that Iraq would inspect flights from Iran to Syria. But the Iraqis have inspected only two, most recently on Oct. 27. No weapons were found, but one of the two planes that landed in Iraq for inspection was on its way back to Iran after delivering its cargo in Syria.
Adding to the United States’ frustrations, Iran appears to have been tipped off by Iraqi officials as to when inspections would be conducted, American officials say, citing classified reports by American intelligence analysts.
Iran’s continued efforts to aid the Syrian government were described in interviews with a dozen American administration, military and Congressional officials, most of whom requested anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.
“The abuse of Iraqi airspace by Iran continues to be a concern,” an American official said. “We urge Iraq to be diligent and consistent in fulfilling its international obligations and commitments, either by continuing to require flights over Iraqi territory en route to Syria from Iran to land for inspection or by denying overflight requests for Iranian aircraft going to Syria.”
Iraqi officials insist that they oppose the ferrying of arms through Iraq’s airspace. They also cite claims by Iran that it is merely delivering humanitarian aid, and they call the American charges unfounded.
“We wouldn’t be able to convince them, even if we searched all the airplanes, because they have prejudged the situation,” Ali al-Musawi, the spokesman for Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq, said of the American concerns. “Our policy is that we will not allow the transfer of arms to Syria.”
Mr. Musawi acknowledged that one of the planes was not inspected until it was returning from Damascus, but said it was a simple error, not a deliberate effort to help the Iranians. “Mistakes sometimes occur,” he said.
But one former Iraqi official, who asked not to be identified because he feared retaliation by the Iraqi government, said that some officials in Baghdad had been doing the bare minimum to placate the United States and were in fact sympathetic to the Iranian efforts in Syria.
The Iranian flights present challenges for the Obama administration, which has been reluctant to provide arms to the Syrian rebels or to establish a no-fly zone over Syria for fear of becoming entangled in the conflict. They also illustrate the limits of the administration’s influence with the Maliki government and point to divergent foreign-policy calculations in Washington and in Baghdad.
While Iraq’s actions clearly benefit Iran, a Shiite country with close ties to many Iraqi officials, Mr. Maliki may have his own reasons to tolerate the flights.
Mr. Maliki, American officials say, is worried that if Mr. Assad falls from power it may embolden Sunni and Kurdish forces in the region, including in Iraq, which could present challenges to his Shiite-dominated government.
Iran’s support for Syria is vital to the Assad government, American officials said. In addition to flying arms and ammunition to Syria, Iran’s paramilitary Quds Force is sending trainers and advisers, sometimes disguised as religious pilgrims, tourists and businessmen, the officials say.
Iran’s flights of arms to Syria drew the concern of American officials soon after the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq last December. Iraq lacks an air force and is unable to enforce control of its own airspace, and Iran took advantage by ferrying arms to Syria.
Under American pressure, Iraqi officials persuaded the Iranians to hold off on the flights as Iraq prepared to host the Arab summit in Baghdad in March. Soon after the meeting, President Obama, in an April 3 call to Mr. Maliki, underscored that the flights should not continue.
But after a bombing in Damascus in July that killed ranking members of Mr. Assad’s government, the Iranian flights resumed. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. raised American concerns over the flights in an Aug. 17 phone call with Mr. Maliki. So did Denis McDonough, Mr. Obama’s deputy national security adviser, who met with Mr. Maliki in Baghdad in October.
When Mr. McDonough raised concerns over the inspection of the plane that was on its way back to Iran, Mr. Maliki responded that he was not aware that the inspection had been carried out that way, according to one account of the meeting by an American official. A spokeswoman for the National Security Council declined to comment.
There is evidence of collusion between Iranian and Iraqi officials on the inspections, according to American intelligence assessments. In one instance, according to an American intelligence report, Qassim Suleimani, the leader of Iran’s Quds Force, ordered that a flight to Syria carry only humanitarian goods. An Iraqi inspection occurred soon after, when the plane was asked to land in Iraq on Oct. 27.
Much of the American intelligence community’s concerns about possible collusion has focused on Hadi al-Amiri, Iraq’s minister of transportation, who is believed to be close to the Iranians and was among the Iraqi traveling party when Mr. Maliki visited Washington last year. Mr. Amiri said: “This is untrue. We are an independent country and our stance is clear. We will search whichever plane we want, whenever we want. We will not take orders.”
Nasir Bender, the head of civil aviation in Iraq, said there was no indication that Iraqi officials had tipped off the Iranians. “We have orders to search any plane that we feel is suspicious, but the ones we have searched were only carrying medical supplies and clothing,” he said, adding that the Iraqis had inspected only two Iranian flights because of the cost of fuel. “We can’t search every plane because there are so many heading to Syria,” he said. “It would be a big waste of money. Each plane we take down we must refill with fuel.”
In one instance in late October, however, an Iranian flight ignored an Iraqi request that it land, according to American intelligence assessments, presumably because the Iranians did not want its cargo to be inspected.
Iraq’s attitude toward the Iranian flights has drawn the concern of lawmakers on Capitol Hill, including Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who has been mentioned as a possible secretary of state in Mr. Obama’s second term.
“If so many people have entreated the government to stop and that doesn’t seem to be having an impact,” Mr. Kerry said in September, “that sort of alarms me a little bit and seems to send a signal to me maybe we should make some of our assistance or some of our support contingent on some kind of appropriate response.”
The activity at the Syrian chemical weapons sites, described by American, European and Israeli officials, poses an additional challenge for the West. The senior American official confirmed on Saturday that in the past two or three days, United States and allied intelligence have detected that the Syrian military was carrying out some kind of activities with some of its chemical stockpiles.
Since the crisis began in Syria, the United States and its allies have stepped up electronic eavesdropping and other surveillance activities of the sites.
Michael R. Gordon and Eric Schmitt reported from Washington, and Tim Arango from Baghdad. David E. Sanger contributed reporting from Washington.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/world ... ities.htmlGruesome footage of atrocities in Syria triggered dissent among rebels and their supporters today, as government forces bombarded rebel strongholds around Damascus and launched a mass raid in the heart of the capital.
Graphic videos posted on YouTube showed rebels fighters throwing bodies off a building in a city near Aleppo. In a shocking amateur video, several bodies are seen crumpled on the ground outside a post office building in al-Bab before another three are hurled from the rooftop as the crowd cries: "These are shabiha," the name given to pro-government militias.
In another, a group of men forces a blindfolded man, with his hands tied behind his back, down to the ground in Aleppo while an assailant saws a knife repeatedly across his throat.
rt video link for the postal workers execution : http://rt.com/news/syria-aleppo-post-video-476/BEIRUT, Lebanon — The top United Nations human rights official warned opposition fighters in Syria on Monday that they would not be immune from prosecution for atrocities, as videos from the Syrian city of Aleppo appeared to show a mass execution by rebel fighters of bound and blindfolded Syrian government soldiers.
One of the videos, first publicized on Monday on the Brown Moses blog, which curates and analyzes video evidence from Syria, showed at least 20 corpses lying in a crooked row on a bloodstained street curb. The victims wore fatigues but no shoes. Several appeared to have been shot in the head.
In that video and another that captured the same scene, different rebel groups appear to take responsibility for the killings. It was impossible to immediately confirm the authenticity of the videos, or to determine exactly when and where they were recorded. If confirmed, the executions were likely to add to growing concerns about the conduct of the militias fighting to topple the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, and particularly their treatment of prisoners.
In a brutal episode in late July, a group of rebel fighters was seen in a video executing several captives — members of an Aleppo family accused of being enforcers for the government — with a spray of gunfire. In recent days, other videos have captured summary executions by the rebels.
Speaking in Geneva on Monday, Navi Pillay, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, warned of atrocities by both the government and its opponents. Both, she said, “deploy snipers that target civilians.” Ms. Pillay also said the Syrian government’s attacks on civilians and destruction of homes “may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity,” according to a transcript of Ms. Pillay’s remarks on her office’s Web site.
And in a stern warning directed at antigovernment forces, Ms. Pillay noted the “undoubted climb in human rights violations” attributed to the rebels, including abductions and summary executions. “Opposition forces should be under no illusion that they will be immune from prosecution,” she said.
In one of the videos showing the executed soldiers, a narrator claims that a rebel battalion called Salman al-Farisi was responsible for killing the men. A man who claimed to be a representative of the battalion, contacted through its Facebook page, condemned the killings but said he was not sure whether members of the militia were responsible for them. The video of the executions was subsequently removed from the battalion’s Facebook page.
In a video posted by the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a man attributes responsibility to a different battalion. “Assad’s dogs,” the man says, panning the camera across the scene of bodies contorted in anguish or slumped in a fetal position. “God is great.”
The leader of the Syrian Observatory, who uses the pseudonym Rami Abdul-Rahman for safety reasons, said that the exact location of the killings was not clear, but that the soldiers might have been part of a contingent from a military base in the Hanano district that rebel fighters attacked on Friday.
Video footage has emerged from Syria allegedly showing rebel fighters beating and kicking surrendered soldiers before shooting them dead. The UN says that if the killings are confirmed, the acts constitute a war crime.
The killings took place on Thursday, during an assault by rebels in the northern town of Saraqeb – which has been the scene of heavy fighting between rebels and government forces in past weeks, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. However, the video cannot be independently verified.
Rebels are now in full control of the town, after regime troops pulled back during Thursday's fighting, the observatory said. The YouTube video, shows around ten armed men in what looks to be a building under construction. In the footage they surround a group of captured men on the ground, some of whom are in Syrian military uniforms. Some of the men are lying on their stomachs, while others are sprawled out as if they are injured.
One of the men can be heard saying, “These are Assad’s dogs,” in the background. Another says, “Damn you,” as the gunmen kick and beat some of the men. Seconds later, screaming is heard simultaneously with gunfire, which erupts for about 35 seconds. The men on the floor are seen twitching and shaking, presumably from being shot.
“I’m not sure of the identity of these people, but this is a war crime in any event. Shooting people after they surrender and especially if they are army people is a war crime in law – both domestic and international – and I think this should be viewed in that light,” President of the Arab Lawyers Association, Sabah al-Mukhtar, told RT.
Amnesty International and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights say they are trying to confirm the video’s authenticity and determine the identity of those responsible. “The allegations are that these were soldiers who were no longer combatants and therefore, at this point, it looks very like a war crime,” spokesman for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Rupert Colville, said in a statement.
Even the country’s main opposition group, the Syrian National Council (SNC), says that if rebel fighters are indeed responsible for the execution, then they should be held accountable for their actions. “We urge the (rebel) Free Syrian Army and the revolutionary movement on the ground to hold to account anyone who violates human rights,” SNC human rights committee head Radif Mustafa told AFP.
But if the gunmen are identified, many have little hope that the guilty parties will ever be brought to justice.
“The western world which created the International Court of Justice doesn’t want it to operate except when they want it to. It didn’t happen in Libya, it didn’t happen in the crimes that were committed in Iraq or Afghanistan, and it’s not likely to happen in Syria because most of these campaigns are being backed by western powers, in particular NATO, the USA, and France,” al Mukhtar said.
What’s worse is that this is not the first report of human rights abuses committed by armed rebels.
“Every day, these so-called rebels supported by NATO and the GCC countries are performing killings of this type. In this case, [the men] are being shot by guns but in other cases, they kill them with knives, slitting their throats and performing unspeakable acts on some of their prisoners. This form of brutality is part of the mentality of these rebels…they are anti-humanistic,” political analyst Dr. Ibrahim Alloush told RT.
This is simply not true - Muslim powers routinely ally with non-Muslims against their Muslim rivals. Realpolitik usually triumphs over ummah-wide solidarity.brihaspati wrote: The Muslim world has always fought and argued against each other, about their internal power equations - but it does not change one single bit theie attitude towards the non-muslim.
Sorry but in the real world there is always a lot more fog of war and friction. No state or group is really able to shape events that closely.Mubarak compromised early on with teh islamists, after seeing his erstwhile leader - a more left leaning leader shot beside him. Note that Mubarak was not assassinated at the same time. Note how the Iraqi king was killed, and who took initial power - a left leaning commander of the army. He was then eliminated to bring Saddam's uncle to power. The movement against the Shah was launched by leftists, and a section of the left leaning army - especially the AF. But using this, Khomeini was brought in - and then the liberal section of the Iranian fringe "secular" element was wiped off. Look at further west along North Africa - and you will see that second half of the 20th ecentury sawa progressive and carefully stage managed increase of Islamist influence in these countries - and turning them from potnetially secular path towards mullahcracy.
I don't think its simple. The mullahs certainly don't like forms of knowledge that sideline them, thats for certain, and in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan they can wage a war on secular knowledge. But in literate socities, the non-clerical lay Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood have already sidelined them. These are people whose degrees in engineering and medicine and law are as important to their status as their zeal for Islamising the system.You will see that the essential conflict in the ME over modernity is not over consumption goods, or technology itself, it is about the fundamental infrastructure of knowledge creation that leads to such consmuption goods. Modernity is about problematization and exploration of given alternatives, and not submission to presumed claims or beliefs. Muslims have always wanted the products of that exploration, but they have consistently rejected the infrastructure for that exploration - which goes completely against Islam.
Of course there's been reactionary responses to the undermining of Islam. But just where has modernity been successfully rolled all the way back? It keeps surging back in. Even in Iran and Saudi Arabia the majority of people's lives continue to be transformed by modernity despite the best efforts of a clerical power structure.In every case, the fundamental conditioning that is almost totalitarian in nature in every Islamic community - predestines every clash with "subversive" element of modernity - towards jihad. It leads more to rejection of modernity in ideological terms as much as a near-gloating adoption of the tools of modernity to intensify that jihad.
Sorry B, but nationalism usually works by turning *living* cultural and community markers and institutions into political ones. Arabic and Islam have been deeply embedded in the lives and culture of the vast majority of Egyptians for over a millennium. Are you going to claim that Russian nationalism should require rejection of the Cyrillic script and the Russian orthodox Church as Byzantine impositions? I mean you can do that of course, but its got nothing to do with the reality of how nationalism actually works.Nationalists should not be equated to Islamists. islamists are tansnationalists in their long term agenda, and nationalists only as short term tactical moves.
If nationalism was such a big deal, Egyptians, or Iranians, or a host of other Islamic countries in the ME and north Africa would have been bristling over the imposition of Arabic script and Arab cultural practices eliminating their "national" characteristics.
In the final analysis, other human aspirations (socio-economic) and sub-identities will never carry the day. The source of the deepest and most all-encompassing identity will be the source of the greatest passion, and in that part of the world it happens to be Islamism which causes a favourable or inimical identification with everything in this world and the hereafter. "Moderation" of conscious political Islamic ideology can never carry the day. Islamism will do so. Unless you think that is not particularly a problem, then one must consider that only an equally passionate commitment to spiritual evolution with a fundamental re-orientation of all identifications and ideas and mythologies can carry the day.Johann wrote:Its also hard to argue against the fact that Saddam began to rely on traditional forms of authority - mullahs and tribal leaders only during after the Gulf War of 1990. Again when economic failure and military disaster strike in the post-colonial era it has made the Islamists more powerful against the status quo.
Carl,Carl wrote:Johann,
...I think you're failing to see that it is a layered schema, with the deeper layers being more rugged, resilient and reactive. So you are probably right that not all leaders of these societies are consciously playing a very calculated double-game (though many significant groups surely are), but overall options in these societies will default to the Islamist directive whenever circumstances get tight.
This is where we fundamentally disagree.In the final analysis, other human aspirations (socio-economic) and sub-identities will never carry the day. The source of the deepest and most all-encompassing identity will be the source of the greatest passion, and in that part of the world it happens to be Islamism which causes a favourable or inimical identification with everything in this world and the hereafter. "Moderation" of conscious political Islamic ideology can never carry the day.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ments.htmlIsrael's latest move has its friends tearing their hair out
By Jake Wallis Simons World Last updated: December 3rd, 2012
Whenever Israel hits the headlines – which tends to be in the context of political controversy rather than, say, world-leading scientific research and innovation – many commentators have an instinct to spring to Israel’s defence. Take the recent conflict in Gaza as an example. Despite the very strong, even obvious, argument of self-defence, which was accepted by the majority of the leaders of the democratic world, and despite the great care with which Israel conducted the military campaign in one of the most challenging conflict zones in the world, the same old accusations flew. Rogue state. Child killers. You know the sort.
Recent events, however, demonstrate why Israel is such a frustrating country to support. In the run-up to the vote at the UN, which resulted in the enhancement of the status of Palestine, I argued that in order to retain the support it had garnered Israel needed to freeze settlement building and respect the Palestinian right to self-determination. This, it seemed to me, was as obvious as Israel's right to self defence. The rights and wrongs of the issue were no longer of primary relevance; without compromising security, Israel needed to make a gesture that would put the ball firmly in the Palestinian court. We’re serious about peace, it should have said. Are you?
The British position, as articulated by William Hague, was in my view spot on. He laid out several key caveats that would prevent the Palestinians from using their enhanced UN status for obstruction and mischief making, and within those terms supported their bid for the next step towards statehood. It is, after all, in the Israeli interest to have a secure state of Palestine existing peacefully along its eastern border. But Israel and the United States staunchly opposed the motion. And now it is Israel’s turn to start the mischief making.
Again Britain is absolutely in the right to summon the Israeli ambassador in response to the approval of thousands of new homes on the West Bank. This move looks to be the final nail in the coffin of the two state solution. Should the E1 area of the West Bank become fully occupied by Israel, there would be little land left over to build a viable Palestine.
Israel's latest move is enough to make its friends around the world tear their hair out. At times like these Israel is a very difficult country to support.
By Robert Tait in Jerusalem and David Blair
03 Dec 2012
If London were to recall its ambassador from Tel Aviv for consultations, this would be an unprecedented step.
The diplomatic row follows last Friday’s announcement by Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister. He promised that his government would respond to the Palestinian decision to seek upgraded status at the United Nations by adding 3,000 new homes to Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.
In addition, Israel would also begin the planning process to build in a highly sensitive area known as “E1”. This cuts off East Jerusalem – which the Palestinians claim as their future capital – from the rest of the West Bank. It also divides the northern and southern halves of the West Bank, potentially depriving any future Palestinian state of territorial contiguity.
British and French diplomats saw this decision as a calculated rebuff by Mr Netanyahu, particularly as both countries had supported the Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip, where eight days of air strikes and rocket barrages claimed 166 Palestinian and six Israeli lives last month.
After Mr Netanyahu’s announcement, Matthew Gould, the British ambassador to Israel, and his French counterpart, Christophe Bigot, are understood to have held a “very tough” telephone conversation with Rafi Barak, the director general of Israel’s foreign ministry. They urged a reversal of Israel’s decision.
On Monday, Daniel Taub, the Israeli ambassador to Britain, was “formally summoned” to the Foreign Office to hear a protest from Alistair Burt, the minister responsible for the Middle East.
A Foreign Office spokesman said that Britain "deplored" Israel's decision and that Mr Burt “set out the depth” of London's concern, adding: “Any decision about any other measures the UK might take will depend on the outcome of our discussions with the Israeli government and with international partners including the US and European Union.”
A Whitehall source confirmed that Mr Gould's withdrawal from Tel Aviv was an “option” under consideration, although no final decision had been taken.
Britain and France are understood to be coordinating their next moves. Besides recalling their respective ambassadors, other possibilities include suspending the regular “strategic dialogues” that both countries hold with Israel, labelling products originating in the occupied Palestinian territories and backing European Union sanctions against Jewish settlements.
But whether Israel will actually build the 3,000 new settler homes is uncertain. Officials have given mixed signals, with the planning minister saying that several stages have to be completed before construction can begin.
Britain and France may be particularly angry because Israel is understood to have given assurances that it would not retaliate harshly for the Palestinian decision to seek the position of “observer state” at the UN.
Britain, which initially opposed the Palestinian move, eventually abstained in last Thursday’s vote in the General Assembly. France voted in favour.
Israel announced on Sunday that it would also withhold £75 million in tax revenues from the Palestinian Authority at a time when this administration is in severe financial difficulty.
Johann,Johann wrote:Education, access to information and living with modern institutions fundamentally shift what people chose to pour into the mold of 'Muslimness.' The growth of female literacy, the growth of access to satellite television and the internet (i.e. access to non-Muslim information, opinions, achievements and lifestyles) are fundamental challenges to the status quo.
Don;t see what is contradictory to what I said! I said that Muslims have always fought against each other about their internal power equations. But it does not change one single bit their attitude towards the non-Muslim.Johann wrote:This is simply not true - Muslim powers routinely ally with non-Muslims against their Muslim rivals. Realpolitik usually triumphs over ummah-wide solidarity.brihaspati wrote: The Muslim world has always fought and argued against each other, about their internal power equations - but it does not change one single bit theie attitude towards the non-muslim.
The Saudis and the Israelis tacitly working against Iran. Iran siding with Armenia against Azerbaijan. The Northern Alliance with Russians, Indians and the West against the Taliban. Jordan, Turkey and Israel and America against Syria. America and Qatar against Qadaffi's Libya.
I am not sure that this is the fact on the ground. You recognize the transition from Nasser to Sadat, as more Left to less-left and more of Saudi-ism, and the patronage or virtual tolerance of the growth of the islamists more and more as Egypt progresses from Nasser-to Sadat-to Mubarak. But you are not seeing the placement of Nasser as a so-called "pseudo-left-progressive nationalist face", that was used throughout the colonies managed by the Brits in the 40's and 50's.Sorry but in the real world there is always a lot more fog of war and friction. No state or group is really able to shape events that closely.Mubarak compromised early on with teh islamists, after seeing his erstwhile leader - a more left leaning leader shot beside him. Note that Mubarak was not assassinated at the same time. Note how the Iraqi king was killed, and who took initial power - a left leaning commander of the army. He was then eliminated to bring Saddam's uncle to power. The movement against the Shah was launched by leftists, and a section of the left leaning army - especially the AF. But using this, Khomeini was brought in - and then the liberal section of the Iranian fringe "secular" element was wiped off. Look at further west along North Africa - and you will see that second half of the 20th ecentury sawa progressive and carefully stage managed increase of Islamist influence in these countries - and turning them from potnetially secular path towards mullahcracy.
There's also real problems with the details of the narrative you're offering. Sadat was certainly not more 'left leaning' than Mubarak He let out the Islamists imprisoned by Nasser to use them in the power struggle over succession after Nasser's death in 1970. Sadat also reversed the nationalisations and capital controls from 1974 ('Infitah') onwards. But they wouldn't have been any use if Nasser's ideology hadn't been discredited by the massive defeat of 1967, and the corruption of the secular army driven state he'd built. Nasser's nationalism, his land reforms, his extension of education and other services to the masses had been incredibly popular, but like leftists everywhere he ran into the problems of maintaining the momentum of growth. The number one investor in the Egyptian economy in the 1970s under Sadat was the Saudis and the Gulf states, and the number one destination for Egyptian expat labour was the Gulf. Ultimately the Saudis did more for Egypt than the Soviet Union, and the result was the strengthening of conservative forces over those of the seculars and Marxists. Just as Nasser before him allowed the Marxists to work in society so long as they and the Soviets supported him, Sadat and later Mubarak allowed conservative and soft Islamists to do the same so long as they opposed his opponents, such as the Salafi Jihadis.
Its difficult to claim that Aref was somehow more Islamically oriented than the King of Iraq. Its also hard to argue against the fact that Saddam began to rely on traditional forms of authority - mullahs and tribal leaders only during after the Gulf War of 1990. Again when economic failure and military disaster strike in the post-colonial era it has made the Islamists more powerful against the status quo.
Khomeini was the first to launch opposition to the Shah after Mossadeq, going back to 1963. He would have been executed except that the death penalty can not be applied to ayatollahs, and he was promoted to ayatollah by his fellow clerics to prevent this from happening. In any case in the end Khomeini's legacy is a mixed one - mosque attendance rates in Iran plummeted in the decades since the revolution. Just as the leftists were discredited by bad government, Islamists are being discredited by the same.
Sure, and that is why Morsi has introduced a more Sharia-aligned constitution after sidelining the clerics! Please compare the statements of the AA Islamic uni's most "respected" and prolific clerics - and with that of the MB, or unspoken but implementations of MB. There is no sidelining where it really matters.I don't think its simple. The mullahs certainly don't like forms of knowledge that sideline them, thats for certain, and in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan they can wage a war on secular knowledge. But in literate socities, the non-clerical lay Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood have already sidelined them. These are people whose degrees in engineering and medicine and law are as important to their status as their zeal for Islamising the system.You will see that the essential conflict in the ME over modernity is not over consumption goods, or technology itself, it is about the fundamental infrastructure of knowledge creation that leads to such consmuption goods. Modernity is about problematization and exploration of given alternatives, and not submission to presumed claims or beliefs. Muslims have always wanted the products of that exploration, but they have consistently rejected the infrastructure for that exploration - which goes completely against Islam.
The most consistent problem Muslims have with modernity is the effect on patriarchy. The Muslim Brotherhood has actually come to terms with the kinds of old fashioned 19th century nationalism that is quite patriarchal, seeing the family as the building bloc of the nation, with educated mothers as the key site where the nation is reproduced.
I don't deny that forces of modernity constantly bang at the door. But the coercive ideological hold that islamist educational and propaganda networks hold once they are allowed to persist - always wins.Of course there's been reactionary responses to the undermining of Islam. But just where has modernity been successfully rolled all the way back? It keeps surging back in. Even in Iran and Saudi Arabia the majority of people's lives continue to be transformed by modernity despite the best efforts of a clerical power structure.In every case, the fundamental conditioning that is almost totalitarian in nature in every Islamic community - predestines every clash with "subversive" element of modernity - towards jihad. It leads more to rejection of modernity in ideological terms as much as a near-gloating adoption of the tools of modernity to intensify that jihad.
Cyrillic script cannot be compared to imposition of Arabic on Egypt. Cyrillic was used because there was no script for the Kievan Rus at the time - but they had a language that was very much within the so-called IE group. The language did not change significantly apart from loanwords. However, when Arabic was imposed, it replaced the Coptic/hieratic entirely - and there are traces of how it was done, destruction of libraries - [whatever was left after the Christian loving], manuscripts, and the priesthood, and other standard measures of the Islamic.Sorry B, but nationalism usually works by turning *living* cultural and community markers and institutions into political ones. Arabic and Islam have been deeply embedded in the lives and culture of the vast majority of Egyptians for over a millennium. Are you going to claim that Russian nationalism should require rejection of the Cyrillic script and the Russian orthodox Church as Byzantine impositions? I mean you can do that of course, but its got nothing to do with the reality of how nationalism actually works.Nationalists should not be equated to Islamists. islamists are tansnationalists in their long term agenda, and nationalists only as short term tactical moves.
If nationalism was such a big deal, Egyptians, or Iranians, or a host of other Islamic countries in the ME and north Africa would have been bristling over the imposition of Arabic script and Arab cultural practices eliminating their "national" characteristics.
To an extent true. But where it matters for us is about support for jihad against the non-Muslim. This remains a very fluid issue. Also the very dependence on external forces, might mean more of a danger - as has happened in the past with Indo-Pak dynamic.This is something you will see all over the Arab and Muslim world - people take their countries seriously, which is why borders haven't just dissolved in a see of Sunni brotherly love. Being an Islamist who insists that you have to be Muslim to be *really* Egyptian doesn't mean that he thinks being Egyptian and Yemeni is the same thing.
There is nothing incompatible between Islamism and nationalism - Hamas screwed over the Muslim brotherhood in Syria to ally with Hafez al-Assad in 1992 because it was busy representing the interests of Palestinians, not Syrian Sunnis. Today Morsi in Egypt has shown no more and no less favour to Hamas in Gaza because it needs World Bank loans and US military aid. Sympathetic as they are, at the end of the day Egyptian national interests come before Palestinian interests.
I stumble upon the bolded part. I did not expect this from you, but perhaps I should not have expected. That line gives an entirely different perspective on what you have written, but that is not for this thread. I am not sure archeologists like Hawas would agree with your sentiment, but I realize where you are coming from.Once again, despite initial rhetorical Islamist denunciation of nationalism, they've had to give way because they can't fight the insidious nature of modernity on Muslims, especially once they're literate.
The vast majority of religiously observant Muslim Egyptians I've met are incredibly nationalistic - they are hugely proud of Egypt's role as the intellectual centre of the Arab world, and think they're its natural leaders. While its only good and right that the paganism of the Pharaohs gave way to Islam the Pyramids are great because they're a proof that the Egyptians are in fact especially bright. Egyptian Arabic is distinctive, and anyone speaking a foreign dialect of Arabic - say a Muslim Libyan (whom all Egyptians wrongly assume are loaded with cash) - will be screwed with much higher prices when trying to negotiate in the Souq, no differently from a non-Muslim Westerner who can speak only Modern Standard Arabic. If I speak in local dialect on the other hand, everything changes.
Its no different with the Syrians for example, who feel they're the natural leaders of the Arab world, with an ancient Semitic past going all the way back to the invention of the alphabet. They pride themselves on being more cosmopolitan and historically better at integrating Hellenic/Roman/European influences while remaining true to their culture - i.e. being modern and Arab. They like to think the average Syrian is better of than the average Arab outside the Gulf, and the result is that theyre much more honest and dignified than the rest. They're also convinced they're physically the most attractive, which other Arabs more or less agree with.
And on and on it goes. The bottom line is people believe in their countries.
By ANNE BARNARD and ELLEN BARRY
BEIRUT, Lebanon — Fierce fighting on the battlefield and setbacks on the diplomatic front increased pressure on the embattled Syrian government on Monday as fresh signs emerged of a worsening battle for control of the capital.
A senior Turkish official said that Russia had agreed on Monday to a new diplomatic approach that would seek ways to persuade President Bashar al-Assad to relinquish power, a possible weakening in Russia’s steadfast support for the government. Fighting raged around Damascus, the Syrian capital, and its airport, disrupting commercial flights for a fourth straight day.
A prominent Foreign Ministry spokesman was said to have left the country amid reports of his defection, and both President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton issued warnings that any use of chemical weapons by a desperate government would be met with a strong international response. A Western diplomat confirmed that there were grave concerns in United States intelligence circles that Syrian leaders could resort to the use of the weapons as their position deteriorates.
The Syrian Foreign Ministry, repeating earlier statements, told state television that the government “would not use chemical weapons, if it had them, against its own people under any circumstances.”
The United Nations said it was withdrawing nonessential international staff from Syria, and the European Union said it was reducing activities in Damascus “to a minimum,” as security forces pummeled the suburbs with artillery and airstrikes in a struggle to seal off the city from its restive outskirts and control the airport road. A senior Russian official spoke for the first time in detail about the possibility of evacuating Russian citizens.
Mr. Assad has held on longer than many had predicted at the start of the 21-month uprising. He still has a strong military advantage and undiminished support from his closest ally, Iran. Military analysts doubt the rebels are capable of taking Damascus by force, and one fighter interviewed on Monday said the government counteroffensive was inflicting heavy losses. There were still no firm indications from Russia that it was ready to join Turkey and Western nations in insisting on Mr. Assad’s immediate departure.
But the latest grim developments follow a week of events that suggested the Assad government was being forced to fight harder to keep its grip on power. Rebels threatened its vital control of the skies, using surface-to-air missiles to down a fighter plane and other aircraft. The opposition also gained control of strategic military bases and their arsenals, and forced the government to shut down the Damascus airport periodically. The Internet was off for two days.
A Russian political analyst with contacts at the Foreign Ministry said that “people sent by the Russian leadership” who had contact with Mr. Assad two weeks ago described a man who has lost all hope of victory or escape.
“His mood is that he will be killed anyway,” Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of a Russian foreign affairs journal and the head of an influential policy group, said in an interview in Moscow, adding that only an “extremely bold” diplomatic proposal could possibly convince Mr. Assad that he could leave power and survive.
“If he will try to go, to leave, to exit, he will be killed by his own people,” Mr. Lukyanov said, speculating that security forces dominated by Mr. Assad’s minority Alawite sect would not let him depart and leave them to face revenge. “If he stays, he will be killed by his opponents. He is in a trap. It is not about Russia or anybody else. It is about his physical survival.”
Many observers — United Nations personnel in Syria, Arab diplomats and opposition activists — stress that it is difficult to reliably assess the state of the government. But taken together, the day’s events suggested that the government’s position was declining more sharply than it had in months and that an international scramble to find a solution to the crisis was intensifying.
Nabil al-Araby, the head of the Arab League, said on Monday that the government could fall at “any time,” Agence France-Presse reported.
“I think there will be something soon,” he said. “Facts on the ground indicate very clearly now that the Syrian opposition is gaining, politically and militarily.”
The Arab League has long called for Mr. Assad to step down. But Russia, Mr. Assad’s most powerful ally, has held out the possibility of his staying in power during a transition, so the Russian government’s apparent shift of emphasis carried more weight.
Mikhail Bogdanov, a deputy foreign minister, told Itar-Tass that Russia was ready to provide assistance to any of its citizens wishing to leave Syria. Tens of thousands of Russians live there, mainly women married to Syrian men after years of cold war cooperation between the countries. He said their route out would most likely be by plane.
“Due to the situation, we recommend Russian citizens not to go to Syria,” Mr. Bogdanov said.
After meeting in Istanbul on Monday, President Vladimir V. Putin and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey said they had agreed on a new approach to resolving the conflict.
“We are neither protecting the regime in Syria nor acting as their advocate, but remain worried about Syria’s future,” Mr. Putin said at a joint news conference with Mr. Erdogan.
Mr. Putin did not elaborate, though Mr. Bogdanov said Russia would meet intensively with Syrian opposition groups based inside the country in the coming month. A senior Turkish official, speaking anonymously in accordance with diplomatic protocol, said plans included looking for ways to get Mr. Assad to step down. Russia has previously said it is not wedded to Mr. Assad, but the official suggested it was now more motivated to find an alternative.
“There is definitely a softening of the Russian political tone,” the Turkish official said, adding that Mr. Putin had acknowledged that Mr. Assad seemed unwilling to depart.
Yet, doubts remain about whether Russia can engineer a breakthrough. The Kremlin has insisted the crisis would be resolved only through negotiations between Syria’s government and its opponents, and its top envoy to Syria has quietly continued to meet with defectors from Mr. Assad’s government and members of the opposition.
But Russia has typically engaged mainly with Syria-based opposition groups, which the exile opposition and many in the uprising say are too close to the government. And Mr. Lukyanov, the Russian analyst, noted that even if Mr. Assad went, a radicalized Alawite security force could simply “turn into a militia.”
Lebanon’s Al-Manar television reported that a smooth-talking Syrian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Jihad Makdissi, had been fired for making statements that did not reflect the government’s position. Activists said he had defected.
Mr. Makdissi, whose polished persona and fluent English had long made him one of the most cosmopolitan faces of the government, had not taken reporters’ phone calls or made public statements recently.
Rami Abdul-Rahman, the director of the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, who uses a pseudonym for safety reasons, said that Mr. Makdissi had met his family in Beirut, where they had been staying, and was believed to have boarded a flight for London. He said Mr. Makdissi had earlier angered some in the Syrian government with a statement saying Syria would use chemical weapons only against a foreign invasion — weapons the government prefers not to acknowledge it has.
While the fighting around Damascus has been intense, analysts say rebels are probably unable to overrun the capital; rather, in forcing the government to devote forces to Damascus, their offensive could hasten the loss of control in other parts of the country.
“We feel a change in the security situation,” said Muhannad Hadi, the Syria director of the United Nations’ World Food Program. He played down the United Nations evacuations, saying that nonessential personnel had left during a rebel offensive in July and had returned. But he said that the proliferation of checkpoints and explosions in the distance had made life in Damascus nerve-racking.
“You hear sounds of explosions, you hear shelling, you don’t know where it’s taking off or where it’s landing,” Mr. Hadi said. “It’s becoming part of daily life.”
Anne Barnard reported from Beirut, Lebanon, and Ellen Barry from Moscow. Reporting was contributed by Sebnem Arsu in Istanbul, Peter Baker in Washington, Hwaida Saad, Neil MacFarquhar and Hania Mourtada in Beirut and Christine Hauser in New York.