links about us archives search home
SustainabiliTankSustainabilitank menu graphic
SustainabiliTank

 
 
Follow us on Twitter


 
Saudi Arabia:

 

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on June 18th, 2013
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

The Politics of Muslim Magic.

by Dawn Perlmutter
Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2013, pp. 73-80 (view PDF)

www.meforum.org/3533/islam-magic-witchcraft

“Saudi Woman Beheaded for Witchcraft” read media headlines around the world on December 13, 2011. News reports described how a 60-year-old woman was executed after being convicted of practicing witchcraft on the basis of such evidence as books on witchcraft, veils, and glass bottles full of an “unknown liquid used for sorcery.”[1] Yet the majority of news accounts implied that the woman was a victim of persecution by the Saudi government; as one of Amnesty International’s directors declared: “The charge of sorcery has often been used in Saudi Arabia to punish people, generally after unfair trials, for exercising their right to freedom of speech or religion.”[2]

 

Ali Sabat was the host of a Lebanese satellite television program that provided psychic advice for Arab callers.

He was sentenced to death by a Saudi court while on pilgrimage there “because he had practiced ‘sorcery’ publicly … before millions of viewers.”

As a result of international pressure, he received a last minute reprieve with his sentence reduced to fifteen years in prison.

No Western reporters seemed to consider that the victim was actually practicing witchcraft, or why witchcraft is considered by the desert kingdom a crime punishable by death. In the West, there is a societal need to place this seemingly inexplicable incident in an understandable context such as the violation of human rights rather than examining this Islamic tradition that includes the belief, practice, and prohibition of magic.

In fact, the practice of what can be termed Islamic magic is prevalent throughout the Muslim world, manifested in the theological concept of jinn, inhabiting the entire sphere of the Muslim occult. Furthermore, magical beliefs can constitute an existential and political threat to Islamic religious leaders, provoking severe punishments and strict prohibitions of any practice not sanctioned by their authority. Conversely, political leaders, including Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Taliban leader Mullah Omar, and Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari, have employed magical beliefs to advance their political agendas.

Islamic Witch Hunts

Belief in witchcraft, sorcery, magic, ghosts, and demons is widespread and pervasive throughout the Muslim world. Magical beliefs are expressed in the wearing of amulets, consulting spiritual healers and fortunetellers, shrine worship, exorcisms, animal sacrifice, and numerous customs and rituals that provide protection from the evil eye, demons, and jinn. Fears associated with these beliefs range from hauntings and curses to illness, poverty, and everyday misfortunes. Supernatural practices that are intended to bring good fortune, health, increased status, honor, and power also abound. Magical beliefs are not relegated to rural or poverty-stricken areas. On the contrary, they are observable in every segment of society regardless of socioeconomic status.

One of the more popular customs is fortunetelling, which is different from the Western practice, which is usually relegated to the status of a carnival act and specific to predicting the future. Generally, the practice of fortunetelling in the Middle East focuses more on spiritual protection and family counseling than prediction and prophecy. In addition to reading cards, dice, palms, and coffee grounds, activities include selling amulets to ward off evil spirits and providing advice for marital problems. In Afghanistan, fortunetellers operate out of small shops or outside of mosques and shrines across the country but are rarely consulted to portend the future; most often their clients are women or the elderly seeking guidance for problems affecting their families. In Iran, fortunetelling has become increasingly popular, and people of all ages turn to fortunetellers in search of happiness and security.[3] In Pakistan, fortunetelling and belief in astrology is so widespread that practitioners appear on morning television shows.[4]

All magical practices are denounced as un-Islamic by clerics. Although they condemn fortunetelling, the practice is not punished as severely as witchcraft and sorcery. This is likely due to the fact that fortunetelling is viewed as using magic to acquire unseen knowledge while sorcery is viewed as intentionally practicing malevolent or black magic. Recently, in Afghanistan, Gaza, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia, stricter laws, arrests, and executions have resulted in efforts to deter magical practices. In January 2008, Afghan religious elders banned dozens of traditional fortunetellers in Mazar-i-Sharif from the area near the Hazrat Ali shrine.[5] In 2010, the Islamist group Hamas, ruling the Gaza Strip, conducted a campaign against witchcraft in the area, arresting 150 women, who were then forced to sign confessions and statements renouncing the practice.[6] According to Hamas “the activities of these women represent a real social danger, also because they risk ‘breaking up families,’ causing divorce and frittering away of money. Sometimes their activities also have criminal repercussions.”[7] In addition to the arrests, Hamas placed large anti-witchcraft posters at mosques, universities, and government offices warning women against magical practices and providing information to Gaza residents wishing to accuse their neighbors of the crime.[8] In August 2010, the campaign escalated to violence when a 62-year-old woman known as a traditional healer was murdered in front of her house by unidentified men after she was accused by her neighbors of practicing witchcraft.[9] In January 2012, Hamas declared the profession of fortunetelling illegal and “forced 142 fortune-tellers to sign written statements averring that they would stop trying to predict the future and sell trinkets that are supposed to offer personal protection.”[10]

In Egypt, Khalil Fadel, a prominent Egyptian psychiatrist, claimed that many Egyptians, including the highly-educated, were spending large amounts of money on sorcery and superstition and warned that growing superstition among Egyptians was threatening the country’s national security, dependent as it was on the mental health of the nation.[11] Under current law, people alleged to be sorcerers can be arrested in Egypt for fraud, but now that the Muslim Brotherhood has come to power and is drafting new legislation, it is conceivable that soon witchcraft could be designated a crime of apostasy, punishable by death.

In April 2009, Bahrain passed strict sorcery laws after x-rays revealed packages containing hair, nails, and blood were being shipped there; witchcraft and sorcery are now criminal offences that can result in fines or prison, followed by deportation.[12]

Neighboring Saudi Arabia enforces the most severe penalties for designated magical crimes. The threat of black magic is taken so seriously there that, in May 2009, an anti-witchcraft unit was created to combat it, along with traditional healing and fortunetelling, and placed under the control of the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (CPV), which employs Saudi Arabia’s religious police, the mutaween. “On the CPV’s website, a hotline encourages citizens across the kingdom to report cases of sorcery to local officials for immediate treatment.”[13] Nine specialized centers were set up in large cities to deal with practitioners of black magic.

A large segment of the “witches” arrested by the CPV were Africans and Indonesians as black magic is often attributed to foreign workers, particularly maids.[14] In September 2011, hundreds of Saudi women complained when the Shura Council (an advisory body) granted permission for Moroccan women, internationally reputed by Muslims as masters of black magic, to work as maids in Saudi households.[15] The wives claimed it was “tantamount to allowing the use of black magic in their homes to steal their husbands … the issue was not lacking trust in their husbands, but their men were powerless to ward off spells.”[16] Foreign domestic workers in the kingdom are accused of sorcery regularly either due to their traditional practices or because Saudi men, facing charges of sexual harassment, want to discredit their accusers.[17]

Nor is prosecution for witchcraft in Saudi Arabia restricted to women. In 2010, Ali Sabat, host of a Lebanese satellite television program that provided psychic advice for callers from around the Arab world, was imprisoned while on the hajj pilgrimage.[18] In a closed court hearing with no representation, he was sentenced to death “because he had practiced ‘sorcery’ publicly for several years before millions of viewers.”[19] As a result of international pressure, he received a last minute reprieve, and his sentence was eventually reduced to fifteen years in prison.

Others had no such luck. There have been several executions for similar crimes: In September 2011, a Sudanese man was beheaded for the crime of witchcraft and sorcery, having been caught in a sting operation set in motion by the religious police and then convicted in a closed trial. In April 2011, thirty officers from the CPV attended a three-day training workshop in the Eastern Province to investigate black magic crimes. The anti-witchcraft unit’s specialized training apparently also involved learning Qur’anic healing rituals to destroy the effects of black magic. There are detailed Islamic treatises on neutralizing black magic that include entire exorcism rites and purification rituals for the destruction of amulets and other magical items. Thus the irony results that neutralizing the effects of spells also constitutes magical practices, albeit legalized ones.

In brief, there are sorcerers, fortunetellers, and traditional healers throughout the Muslim world; many are in violation of interpretations of the Shari’a (Islamic law), and in some countries, that is punishable by death. European witch hunts ended when the scientific revolution and the Enlightenment brought empirical reason to the fore, and rationality eventually replaced the West’s superstitious world-views. The Islamic view of sorcery and witchcraft is significantly different. In contemporary Islamic witch hunts, there is an accepted, long-established, theologically-sanctioned supernatural tradition. Although science was cultivated in Muslim lands during Islam’s Golden Age, witch hunts never ceased because the Enlightenment’s rationalist ideologies did not replace the Islamic magical world-view. Rather, Islamic witch hunts have evolved into a combination of primal ritual and modern technology where videos of exorcisms and beheadings are available on the Internet.[20]

Jinn and the Muslim Occult

To fully comprehend contemporary witch hunts and the prevalence of magical beliefs in the Muslim world, it is necessary to understand the concept of jinn. Jinn provide Islamic explanations for evil, illness, health, wealth, and position in society as well as all mundane and inexplicable phenomena in between. The word jinn (also written as jinnee, djinn, djinni, genii or genie) is derived from the Arabic root j-n-n meaning to hide or be hidden, similar to the Latin origins of the word “occult” (hidden).

In the West, occult practices are marginalized and relegated to pagan traditions or the mystical aspects of religious traditions. In Islam, however, jinn are an integral part of Islamic theology. According to the Qur’an, God created humans from clay, angels from light, and jinn from smokeless fire: “Although belief in jinn is not one of the five pillars of Islam, one can’t be Muslim if he/she doesn’t have faith in their existence. … Indeed, the Qur’anic message itself is addressed to both humans and jinn, considered the only two intelligent species on earth.”[21] While frequently described as angels and demons, jinn are actually a third category—complex, intermediary beings who, similar to humans, have free will and can embrace goodness or evil.[22] Like humans, they are required to worship God and will be judged on the Day of Judgment according to their deeds.[23]

Evil jinn are referred to as shayatin, or devils, and Iblis (Satan) is their chief.[24] They can take the form of humans or animals with many of the fears associated with Islamic purification rites expressed in the symbolic attributes of the jinn. For example, in Islam, dogs, urine, feces, and blood are intrinsically impure, and jinn are known to shape-shift to dogs, accept impure animal sacrifice, and dwell in bathrooms, graveyards, and other unclean places. Muslims believe that evil jinn are spiritual entities that can enter and possess people and exercise supernatural influence over them. Women are considered to be more vulnerable to jinn because they are thought to be weaker in their faith and impure several days of the month.[25]

While jinn have been relegated to fantasy characters in the West, to countless believing Muslims, there is no doubt that they exist. An August 2009 Gallup poll, for example, found that 89 percent of Pakistanis respondents surveyed, believed in jinn.[26] Witches, sorcerers, and fortunetellers are all believed to be under the guidance of jinn and are sometimes referred to as “jinn catchers.”

Jinn are intrinsically intertwined with the practice of both licit Qur’anic magic and illicit black magic (sihir). Black magic is considered to be worked by those who have learned to summon evil jinn to serve them while Qur’anic magic invokes the guidance of God to exorcise the demons. Even spiritual healers with good intentions who do not employ Qur’anic healing methods can be designated as witches and sorcerers: In Saudi Arabia, only qualified individuals, usually natives designated by the religious authorities, are allowed to practice Qur’anic treatment methods; most of those arrested and beheaded for sorcery and witchcraft tend to be foreigners regardless of whether or not they were practicing Qur’anic medicine.

Despite regulations, an entire industry of professional exorcists who perform Qur’anic healing has arisen to meet demand throughout the Middle East and among Western Muslims with exorcists openly advertising on the Internet, using Facebook and Twitter, and posting thousands of videos on YouTube demonstrating healing techniques and publicizing actual exorcisms. Qur’anicHealers.com, a division of Spiritual Superpower Inc., for example, has a Paypal account, contact information for Qur’anic healers in twelve countries and a post office box in Artesia, California.[27]

Clerics, police, and politicians carefully negotiate the political, religious, legal, moral, and ethical issues that arise from dealing with this world of spirits with each country having its own laws to regulate various practices. For example, although exorcists are not prohibited in Gaza, Hamas considers most of them con artists, claiming to have exposed thirty cases of fraud in 2010: “We caught some suspects red-handed … using magic to separate married couples … It was all an act of deception and exploitation. Some people handed over fortunes, and one woman gave all her jewelry to one of these exorcists.”[28]

Abusive, quasi-medical practices have also been committed in the name of Qur’anic magic. Despite the fact that there are hospitals with psychiatric sections in Afghanistan, a common practice there is to chain the mentally ill to shrines for forty days to ritually exorcise the jinn “possessing” them. Patients are fed a strict diet of bread and black pepper, do not have a change of clothing, and sleep on the ground. Those who do not survive the treatments are buried in earthen mounds around the shrine. While doctors in Muslim lands recognize physical and mental illnesses, some are inclined to attribute inexplicable cases to possession. And although there are mullahs and religious scholars reportedly against these practices, the custom continues. There is no doubt that clerics believe in the powers of jinn; they would no more question the existence of jinn than they would the Qur’an.

The Politics of Magic

Jinn can represent an existential and political threat to religious leaders. Religious clerics condemn or actively ban illicit spiritual healing not because of the atrocities that have been committed, or because people are being defrauded, or even out of a conviction to save people’s souls from evil but out of fear that jinn exist and can be induced to subvert their authority.

At the same time, some leaders have used the belief in jinn to further their political agendas. Sheikh Ahmed Namir, a cleric and Hamas leader, perpetuates anti-Semitic tropes, claiming that economic hardship and psychological traumas in the Gaza Strip have encouraged evil Christian and Jewish jinn to possess Palestinians.[29] Palestinian stories of jinn possession are full of classic anti-Semitic propaganda and symbolism; in one case of “possession,” for example, the attempted murder of a child by her mother was blamed on “sixty-seven Jewish jinn,” transforming the ancient blood libel accusation into a new and bizarre form.[30] Not surprisingly, exorcizing Jewish jinn has become a growing business in Gaza:

Sheikh Abu Khaled, a Palestinian exorcist, said the number of possessed Muslims has more than tripled: “I suspect that Jewish magicians send jinns to us here in Gaza. In fact, most of my patients are possessed with Jewish jinns.”[31]

Some leaders allude to possessing supernatural powers in order to self-aggrandize but this can also backfire. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told followers in 2005 that he “was surrounded by a halo of light during a speech to the U.N. General Assembly, in which the foreign leaders in the hall were transfixed, unable to blink for a half hour.”[32] But in May 2011, Ahmadinejad’s supernatural “powers” resulted in the arrests of two dozen of his aides, charged by opposing religious clerics with practicing black magic and invoking jinn. While most Western reporters scoffed at the story of imprisoned exorcists, The Wall Street Journal interviewed a renowned Iranian sorcerer, Seyed Sadigh, who claimed that dozens of Iran’s top government officials consult him on matters of national security and that he used jinn to infiltrate Israeli and U.S. intelligence agencies: “Mr. Sadigh says he doesn’t waste jinn powers on trivial matters such as love and money. Rather, he contacts jinn who can help out on matters of national security and the regime’s political stability. His regular roll call includes jinn who work for … the Mossad, and for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.”[33]

It would appear that the accusations of sorcery were the result of a power struggle between the president and the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamene’i, making this both an actual and political witch hunt. The primary target of the arrests was Ahmadinejad’s chief of staff Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei whose “alternative Messianic version of Islam … includes aspects of the occult and a more limited role for clerics.”[34] Not surprisingly, Sadigh reinforced this notion, declaring, “I have information that Ahmadinejad is under a spell, and they are now trying to cast one on Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamene’i to obey them blindly.”[35] Sadigh the sorcerer negotiates the politics of magic like a pro, changing allegiances to align himself with whoever seems to be on top and selling his services to him. Perhaps the real power behind the Iranian government resides with the jinn catchers.

Mullah Omar, the Pashtun founder of the Taliban, is widely perceived as magically protected.[36] Laying claim to the Afghan tradition of charismatic mullahs with supernatural powers, Omar adopted the same strategy, removing a cloak, believed by many Afghans to having been worn by the prophet Muhammad, from a shrine in Kandahar and wearing it openly.[37] Since legend decreed that the chest holding the cloak could only be opened when touched by a true leader of the Muslims, wearing it gave him the status of an Afghan hero endowed with extraordinary mystical powers. When Kabul fell to his forces, his supernatural status was confirmed.

Knowing that the Pashtun emphasize dreams as a form of revelation, Omar cultivated the idea that God spoke to him through his dreams and claimed that he based his most crucial policy decisions on them.

Conclusions

Whether to appease a superstitious people or out of sincerely-held belief, Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari sacrifices a black goat nearly every day to ward off the evil eye and provide protection from black magic.[38] He, along with Ahmadinejad and Mullah Omar, understands that knowledge of local customs, jinn, and magical practices has significant political value. A superstitious population presents numerous opportunities to communicate fear, apprehension, or awe and to exert influence.

Knowledge of local myths, customs, and magical beliefs can present unique opportunities for diplomacy as well as warfare, but Westerners do not know how to deal with belief in supernatural phenomena, continually applying a rational, scientific approach to cultures that engage in magical thinking and refusing to acknowledge the political significance of these beliefs. Currently, U.S. policymakers cannot even publicly acknowledge that acts of terrorism are based on Islamist religious ideologies, much less give credence to jinn.

U.S. leaders tend to attribute the root causes of violence to secular, social, and economic factors such as poverty, illness, illiteracy, and hunger. This has resulted in a strategy to win the hearts and minds of the people by providing food, shelter, education, and medicine. These operations have consistently failed because Islamic religious and political leaders understand that their people primarily view the root cause of their difficulties as a spiritual problem. Instead of freedom, they foster faith. The Islamic strategy is to win souls by providing supernatural protection, via God or jinn. Hearts and minds will then follow.

Dawn Perlmutter is director and founder of Symbol & Ritual Intelligence and a leading expert on religious terrorism and ritualistic crimes. She trains and advises law enforcement and defense agency personnel.

[1] The New York Times, Dec. 12, 2011; ABC News, Dec. 13, 2011; CNN, Dec. 13, 2011; al-Jazeera TV (Doha), Dec. 13, 2011.
[2] Amnesty International, Dec. 12, 2011; al-Jazeera TV (Doha), Dec. 13, 2011; The Telegraph (London), Dec. 13, 2011.
[3] Reuters, Nov. 25, 2007.
[4] Chowrangi blog, May 18, 2011.
[5] Reuters, Jan. 27, 2008.
[6] International Mediterranean News Service (ANSAmed), Jan. 15, 2011.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ma’an News Agency (Bethlehem), Aug. 19, 2010.
[10] Arutz Sheva (Beit El and Petah Tikva), Jan. 3, 2012.
[11] The Huffington Post (New York), Sept. 6, 2009.
[12] Gulf Daily News (Manama, Bahrain), Apr. 1, 2009; Muslim Media Network, May 13, 2010.
[13] The Jerusalem Post, July 20, 2011.
[14] Arab News (Riyadh), Apr. 4, 2011.
[15] Morocco Board News (Washington, D.C.), Oct. 1, 2011; The Jerusalem Post, Oct. 22, 2011.
[16] The Jerusalem Post, Oct. 22, 2011.
[17] Ibid., July 20, 2011; Uri Friedman, “How Do You Prove Someone’s a Witch in Saudi Arabia?Foreign Policy, Dec. 13, 2011.
[18] Emirates 24/7 (Dubai), Apr. 23, 2011.
[19] The New York Times, Apr. 2, 2010.
[20] All videos accessed Jan. 4, 2013, YouTube: “Islamic Exorcism,” June 7, 2006, “Exorcism in Islam,” July 29, 2007, “Ruyati Binti Sapubi—An Indonesian Maid in Saudi Arabia Beheaded,” June 18, 2011, “Man beheaded in carpark as per Muslim Shariah law.”
[21] Amira El-Zein, Islam, Arabs and the Intelligent World of the Jinn (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2009), p. x.
[22] Ibid., p. xi.
[23] Reinhold Loeffler, Islam in Practice: Religious Beliefs in a Persian Village (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988), p. 46.
[24] Sam Shamoun, “Qur’an Incoherence and Contradiction: Is Satan an Angel or a Jinn?“ Answering-islam.org, accessed Dec. 28, 2012; “Jinn According to Quran and Sunnah,” Muttaqun.com, accessed Dec. 28, 2012.
[25] Gerda Sengers, Women and Demons: Cult Healing in Islamic Egypt (Leiden: Brill, 2003), p. 163.
[26]Pakistanis’ Belief in Super Natural Beings,” Gilani Poll-Gallup Pakistan, Islamabad, Aug. 31, 2009.
[27] Qur’anicHealers.com , accessed Dec. 28, 2012.
[28] Reuters, Mar. 11, 2011.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Celia E. Rothenberg, Spirits of Palestine: Gender, Society and Stories of the Jinn (Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2004), pp. 77-8.
[31] Robert S. Robins and Jerrold M. Post, Political Paranoia: The Psychopolitics of Hatred (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), p. 56.
[32] ABC News, May 9, 2011.
[33] The Wall Street Journal, June 10, 2011.
[34] ABC News, May 9, 2011; ibid., June 10, 2011.
[35] The Wall Street Journal, June 10, 2011.
[36] Thomas H. Johnson and M. Chris Mason, “Understanding the Taliban and Insurgency in Afghanistan,” Orbis, Winter 2007.
[37] Ibid.
[38] The Guardian (London), Jan. 27, 2010; ABC News, Jan. 29, 2010.

Related Topics:  Islam  |  Dawn Perlmutter  |  Spring 2013 MEQ This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on June 8th, 2013
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

On Peacekeeper Kidnaps, UN Says No Evidence of Involvement of “States”

 

 

By Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press - www.innercitypress.com

 

 

UNITED NATIONS, June 7 — After at least three kidnappings  {kidnap events of} UN peacekeepers in the Golan, and then an attack that led Austria to decide to pull its troops out of the mission, the question of who is ultimately behind the attacks remains murky.

 

  On the afternoon of June 7 Inner City Press asked UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant, president of the Security Council for June, if there was any discussion of involvement from any outside state in the threats to peacekeepers. As in the morning, he said there had been no such discussion.

 

  In the General Assembly, Syrian Ambassador Bashar Ja’afari read a cell phone number from an e-mail he said showed involvement from Qatar in the kidnappings of peacekeepers.

 

    He has said he provided information to UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous; Syria’s representative at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on June 4 said that Ladsous was investigating the Qatar claim.

 

  But at the UN in New York, they didn’t want to answer. On June 4, Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s spokesman Martin Nesirky if Ladsous was, in fact, looking into it.

Nesirky said he would ask the Department of Peacekeeping Operations.

 

  Three days later on June 7, having gotten no response, Inner City Press repeated the question. Nesirky said again that he would check with DPKO, whose spokesman was in the briefing room, as Inner City Press reported. It was later indicated that an answer would come. And now it has:

 

Subject: Your question on Qatar
From: UN Spokesperson – Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:16 PM
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com

 

Regarding your question on Qatar earlier today, below is the response from DSS and DPKO:

 

The United Nations has no evidence of any involvement by Member States or state actors in the abduction or detention of UN personnel in Syria. To our knowledge, the peacekeepers were detained by individual groups operating in Syria.

 

  One might find it strange that without answering the question asked on June 4 — was Ladsous’ DPKO looking into what Syria provided it on May 22 and conducting an inquiry as Syria requested, and on June 4 in Geneva said was being done — the UN now simply says it has no evidence.

 

  The answer also implies that the UN sees or accepts a distinction between “individual groups operating in Syria” and outside states: as if outside states didn’t arm and fund “individual groups” in Syria.

 

  But it may also be worth looking more closely at what is being answered: the UN says it has no evidence that Qatar as a “member state or state actor” is involved.

 

  What Ja’afari alleged in the General Assembly was that the Syrian opposition figure to whom Qatar “gave” Syria’s embassy in Doha was involved in the kidnapping. He is not a “state actor,” but Qatar’s support of him puts his alleged role in a different light.

 

  If one knew more about Ladsous, evidence of objectivity for example, perhaps there would not be so many questions. But when Ladsous confined news of the third kidnapping to a “conversation” with friendly reporters, it raises questions.

 

  So the question to be answered is: was the Syrian opposition figure to whom Qatar “gave” Syria’s embassy in Doha involved in any of the kidnappings? Did any e-mail received by UN officials in May reflect this? Has the UN done anything to look into or act on this since? 

 

Footnote: at the stakeout after Council consultations Russia’s Vitaly Churkin said his country is offering to replace the Austrian observers, but is checking to see if this would require a Security Council resolution as well as an amended agreed by Israel and Syria. A representative of Syria told Inner City Press, not surprisingly, they would agree.

 

In further information from the UN – a different source – it seems that UN Secretary General Mr. Ban Ki-moon, rulled that Russia, because it is a member of the P-5, is not allowed to send troops in a UN Peace-keeping mission. We wonder if this is in the Charter or just decided because the lack of a precedent. In any case – with Russia supplying arms to the Syrian government they are not fit to be on a neutral peace-keeping mission by simple logic.

Does Austria pull out because as a neutral State it is not ready to have its troops face Russia supported Syrian troops?

 

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on May 13th, 2013
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Iran will assume the presidency of the UN Conference on Disarmament on May 27 and hold it over four weeks, until June 23, 2013.

The conference chair helps organize the work of the conference and assists in setting the agenda.

The conference was established in 1979 after a special U.N. General Assembly session, and is made up of 65 countries. In the past, the conference and its predecessors negotiated major multilateral arms limitation and disarmament agreements. In recent years it has become paralyzed, with member states often divided even on setting the agenda.

The Conference of Disarmament reports to the UN General Assembly and is billed by the UN as “the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community.”

Iran is astate that illegally supplies rockets to Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas, potentially aiding and abetting mass murder and terrorism. To make this rogue regime head of world arms control is an outrage. Abusers of international norms should not be the public face of the UN.


“This is like putting Jack the Ripper in charge of a women’s shelter,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, the Geneva based non-governmental organization, which announced it will hold protest events outside the UN hall, featuring Iranian dissidents.

The UN is not shocked, its officials say Iran’s post is merely the result of an automatic rotation.

=====================================

The US and others speak up:

Statement by Erin Pelton, Spokesperson, U.S. Mission to the United Nations, on Iran’s Rotation as President of the Conference on Disarmament, May 13, 2013
Erin Pelton
Spokesperson 
U.S. Mission to the United Nations 
New York, NY
May 13, 2013

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Iran’s upcoming rotation as President of the Conference on Disarmament (CD) is unfortunate and highly inappropriate. The United States continues to believe that countries that are under Chapter VII sanctions for weapons proliferation or massive human-rights abuses should be barred from any formal or ceremonial positions in UN bodies.

While the presidency of the CD is largely ceremonial and involves no substantive responsibilities, allowing Iran–a country that is in flagrant violation of its obligations under multiple UN Security Council Resolutions and to the IAEA Board of Governors–to hold such a position runs counter to the goals and objectives of the Conference on Disarmament itself. As a result, the United States will not be represented at the ambassadorial level during any meeting presided over by Iran.

###

=======================================================================================

another e-mail we got:


This isn’t the first time that the Conference on Disarmament has faced similar controversy. In July 2011it was North Korea’s turn to take the helm. Not surprisingly, North Korea took the appointment as a sign of approval. Its representative announced that the country was “very much committed to the Conference” and that “he would do everything in his capacity to move the Conference on Disarmament forward.”

So fast forward. We find an ever more aggressive North Korea sharing nuclear know-how with like-minded belligerents, such as Iran and Syria.

When North Korea took the helm, Iran’s representative told the Conference: “I would like to congratulate the distinguished ambassador of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for the assumption of the presidency and assuring him of my delegation’s full support and cooperation.” You can be sure that the North Korean rep will deliver an equally flowery welcome when Iran dons the crown.

This also isn’t the first time that the UN has appointed Iran to a position of authority wildly at odds with its reprehensible record. In 2010 Iran was elected to the UN Commission on the Status of Women – the UN’s top women’s rights body. Iranian laws that permit women to be stoned for alleged adultery? Irrelevant.

The saddest part of this charade is that these countries and their despotic leaders take sustenance from acquiring such formal trappings and basking in the accompanying diplomatic niceties. The United States is a member of the Conference on Disarmament. We don’t need another administration speech that the “door is still open” but “the window is closing.” With an Iranian poised to preside, we need to leave.

===============================================================================

UN rights chief finally thinks Egypt’s human rights trajectory a problem

UN Human Rights Chief Navi Pillay is getting worried somebody might figure out she was on the wrong side of history in Egypt. Her latest press statement is entitled: “Egypt risks drifting away from human rights ideals.” D’ya think? So Pillay now has this to say about the legal moves currently unfolding under the human rights tutelage of the Muslim Brotherhood: “I am very concerned that the new law, if adopted in its current form, may leave them in a worse situation than they were prior to the fall of the Mubarak Government in 2011.”

==============================================================================

Then see also:

Saudi Arabia heads UN counter-terror efforts

Leading terror exporter Saudi Arabia heads UN’s Counter-Terrorism Centre

Saudi Arabia is the Chair of the UN’s Counter-Terrorism Centre Advisory Board. Well, it does know a lot about terrorism – as a major player in the realm of training, financing and indoctrinating terrorists. Saudi Arabia has also ratified the terrorism treaty of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which defines terrorism to exempt hitting Jewish or American or any other target while engaged in “armed struggle against foreign occupation, aggression, colonialism, and hegemony, aimed at liberation and self-determination.” So how did Saudi Arabia come to Chair the UN “counter-terrorism” group? The UN website unabashedly informs us that they bought it: “In 2011, through a voluntary contribution of the Government of Saudi Arabia, the United Nations Secretariat was able to launch the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Centre (UNCCT).” The Obama administration responded by joining their Advisory Board.

====================================================

The State Department’s recent release of its human rights report on Saudi Arabia contains the following statement under the heading “anti-Semitism:” “There were no known Jewish citizens.” Judenrein Arab states?

====================================================

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

UN chief says Israel should calm down about Hezbollah-bound Syrian weapons

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has swung into action on Syria – to criticize Israel for destroying Hezbollah-bound weapons on Syrian territory. The threat to international peace and security, and specifically to Israel, from weaponry switching hands and moving across borders from Syria grows more dire day-by-day. The UN chief thought the right response was to ask “all sides” (ie Israel) to “exercise maximum calm and restraint” – and respect Syrian “national sovereignty and territorial integrity.” Since when was murdering 70,000 + and arming organizations committed to attacking a neighboring state, an internal sovereign affair?

===============================================================================

Richard Falk addresses AUB audience

UN’s Falk welcomed in Beirut after his obscene remarks on Boston

Terrorist sympathizer and UN Human Rights Council expert Richard Falk had a busy week in the Hezbollah stronghold of Beirut, following his obscene remarks on the Boston terror attacks. On Thursday of last week he delivered the annual Constantine Zurayk Lecture at the American University of Beirut. He entitled his speech “Rethinking the Future of Palestine: Beyond the Two State Consensus,” and argued against the two-state solution for ending the Palestinian Arab-Israeli conflict because at this moment in time it is “obsolete.” Iranian TV has now posted a video about Falk’s performance. Similar to the justifications he made for “resistance” at the time of the Boston terror attacks, Press TV reports that Falk “praised the resistance of the Palestinian people, considering it as the only means to address their suffering….Dr. Falk argued that…the only way to address the ordeal of the Israeli occupation is through global mobilization of support for the resistance….” In addition to direct support for terrorism – aka “resistance” – Falk told the reporter: “Israel can’t live in peace and security with its neighbors…It is a pariah state endangering the Middle East…and the U.S. is an accomplice.” Zurayk was a well-known Arab nationalist who spent his career arguing how the battle against Israel can be won and giving directions for “the road to final and complete victory.” He is heralded for coining the term “al-nakba” – the now entrenched reference to the creation of the state of Israel as a “catastrophe.” Some call him the grand-daddy of the insidious political plan of “catastrophology.” It is clear why Falk would be the recipient of the Zurayk honor.

===================================================================

 

 

 

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on May 5th, 2013
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

 

 (illustration: Solar News)
(illustration: Solar News)

 

The Incredible Shrinking Cost of Solar Energy.

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment on Reader Supported News.

04 May 13

 

ob Wile uses a graph to point out the obvious, the dramatic fall in the cost of solar power generation. In many countries– Italy, Spain, Germany, Portugal — and in parts of the US such as the Southwest, solar is at grid parity. That means it is as inexpensive to build a solar plant as a gas or coal one. The pace of technological innovation in the solar field has also accelerated, so that costs have started falling precipitously and efficiency is rapidly increasing.  

By 2015, solar panels should have fallen to 42 cents per watt.

Reneweconomy.com says that the best Chinese solar panels fell in cost by 50% between 2009 and 2012. That incredible achievement is what has driven so many solar companies bankrupt– if you have the older technology, your panels are suddenly expensive and you can’t compete. It is like no one wants a 4 year old computer.

Conservatives shed no tears when better computers drive slower ones out of the market, but point to solar companies’ shake-out as somehow bad or unnatural. No wonder US solar installations jumped 76% in 2012.

The reductions in cost over the next two years are expected to continue, at a slowing but still impressive 30% rate:

Construction has begun on the world’s largest solar plant. MidAmerican Solar and SunPower Corp. are building a 579 megawatt installation, the Antelope Valley Solar Project, in Kern and Los Angeles counties in California. That is half a gigawatt, just enormous. It will provide electricity to 400,000 homes in the state (roughly 2 million people?), and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 775,000 tons a year. The US emits 5 billion metric tons a year of C02, second only to China, and forms a big part of the world’s carbon problem all by itself. We just need 645 more of the Antelope Valley projects.

Important new research also shows that hybrid plants that have both solar panels and wind turbines dramatically increase efficiency and help with integration into the electrical grid. Earlier concerns that the turbines would cast shadows and so detract from the efficiency of the solar panels appear to have been overblown. Because in most places in the US there is more sun in the summer and more wind in the winter, a combined plant keeps the electricity feeding into the grid at a more constant rate all year round, which is more desirable than big spikes and fall-offs.

That Germany, then China, then the US are the world’s largest solar markets is no surprise. But that number 17 Japan will increase its solar installations by 120% in 2013 and so may be the second hottest solar market, just after China, this year, would mark a big change. Japan may well have 5 gigawatts of solar installed by the end of this year, even though the relatively new prime minister, Shinzo Abe, is no particular friend of the renewables. In my own view, if Japan made the right governmental and private investments, it could overtake China in the solar field and reverse its long post-bubble stagnation.

ABB has been commissioned a large solar electricity generating plant on the edge of the Kalahari Desert near Cape Town, South Africa. It will supply the electricity needs of around 40,000 persons and reduce annual emissions by 50,000 tons of carbon dioxide. South Africa emits 500 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, and is third in the world for per capita emissions. (Still, it only emits a 10th as much over-all as the US). But they just need a thousand more plants like the Kalahari one, and voila! South Africa is also imposing a carbon tax, which will hurry things along. (At the moment, South Africa is far too dependent on dirty coal plants, which not only fuel climate change but also spew deadly toxins such as mercury into the atmosphere, whence it goes into human beings.

Because of South African and Israeli demand in particular, demand for solar panels in the Middle East and Africa has risen over 600% during the past year. Saudi Arabia’s announced plans to save its petroleum for export by going solar at home will add a great deal to regional demand if it sticks to those plans. (In most countries, petroleum isn’t used much for electricity generation as opposed to transportation, but in oil states such as Saudi Arabia it often is used in power plants; but that cuts down on foreign exchange earnings.)

The two Indian states of Gujarat and Rajasthan are emerging as the solar giants in India, with each having now passed half a gigawatt in solar electricity generation capacity. The two account for some 88% of all of India’s solar power. But Rajasthan may soon outstrip Gujarat, given the state’s solar-friendly commitments, its ample amounts of scorching sunlight, and its vast deserts.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on May 3rd, 2013
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

THE NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL May 3, 2013:

The Arab League offers an improved proposal for peace in the Middle East, a welcome announcement.

One Step Forward

By
Published – The New York Times on-line: May 2, 2013 2 Comments

In any discussion of a negotiated peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, a crucial question involves what the Arab states would do.
On Tuesday, the Arab League reaffirmed its 2002 peace initiative and suggested that the proposal could be modified to bring it more in line with American and Israeli ideas.

The welcome announcement could be very significant. Arab leaders deserve credit for reviving the initiative, as does Secretary of State John Kerry for trying to reinvigorate some kind of Israeli-Palestinian dialogue. Mr. Kerry, calling the move a “very big step forward,” said it meant Arab leaders were offering a security arrangement for the region.

The Arab League initiative, approved by all Arab states but rejected by Israel 11 years ago, endorses a two-state solution while promising peace and normalization in exchange for Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank and East Jerusalem and a “just solution” to the Palestinian refugees issue.

After a meeting on Monday with Mr. Kerry and Vice President Joseph Biden Jr., Qatar’s foreign minister said the league had eased its demand that Israel return to its pre-1967 borders. Instead, the minister accepted the possibility of adjusting those borders with a comparable and mutually agreed “minor swap of land.” Israelis and Palestinians were close to a deal along these lines in 2008.

If there is ever to be a peace deal, Israelis will have to be persuaded that the Arab states, not just the Palestinians, accept their right to exist. And Palestinians will need to feel that the Arab states are behind them.

This is the first hopeful sign in a long time. But it soon ran into trouble from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel who reacted coolly on Wednesday and questioned the fundamental idea of exchanging land for peace. “The root of the conflict isn’t territorial,” he told Israeli diplomats. “The Palestinians’ failure to accept the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people is the root of the conflict.”

On Thursday, he said any peace deal would be put to a referendum, which some experts say could be an obstacle. However, Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, Mr. Netanyahu’s peace negotiator, welcomed the Arab proposal, as did Ehud Olmert, the former prime minister, and other opposition politicians.

“Mideast peace” has become a throwaway line. But that goal is unquestionably the right course for the Israelis, Palestinians and an increasingly unstable region. Arab leaders, after standing on the sidelines for too long, have made a contribution by giving the two sides something to talk about. Now it’s up to the Israelis and Palestinians, working with the United States, to take it forward.

——————————————————————

Arab Peace Initiative, take 2: Major development or ‘scam’?

www.timesofisrael.com/arab-peace-initiative-take-2-major-development-or-scam/?utm_source=The+Times+of+Israel+Daily+Edition&utm_campaign=e92fc84b62-2013_05_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_adb46cec92-e92fc84b62-54419797

www.timesofisrael.com/the-israeli-armys-most-improbable-arab-prosecutor/?utm_source=The+Times+of+Israel+Daily+Edition&utm_campaign=e92fc84b62-2013_05_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_adb46cec92-e92fc84b62-54419797

  • Thursday, May 2, 2013
  • Iyyar 22, 5773

Could the amended formula for a two-state solution yield a breakthrough?
The consensual answer seems to be, ‘Maybe, but…’

By May 1, 2013, 9:16 pm 9
US Secretary of State John Kerry with Qatar's Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr Al-Thani, second from left, and Arab League Secretary-General Nabil Elaraby, April 29, 2013 (photo credit: AP/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

US Secretary of State John Kerry with Qatar’s Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr Al-Thani, second from left, and Arab League Secretary-General Nabil Elaraby, April 29, 2013 (photo credit: AP/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

In 2002, then-prime minister Ariel Sharon tasked his foreign policy adviser, Danny Ayalon, with further exploring the idea of the Arab League’s new peace initiative.

“He sent me to find out if the Saudis were serious,” Ayalon recalled recently, adding that he tried to arrange, through middlemen, a meeting with Adel Jubeir, an adviser to then-crown prince (now King) Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Earlier that year, Abdullah had proposed the plan, which seemed to offer Israel normalized relations with the Arab world in exchange for territorial concessions, a formula for handling Palestinian refugee claims and the establishment of a Palestinian state.

“We almost met in a restaurant in Washington and at the last minute he didn’t want to meet,” Ayalon said of Jubeir. “We promised it would be under the radar, it would be very low-profile.” The Saudis reneged on the scheduled meeting, and the rest is history — Israel never formally responded to the offer.

Ayalon, who served as deputy foreign minister until earlier this year, said Jerusalem never warmed to the proposal because it was presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, with no room for discussions. However, he said in early March, it could serve “as a basis for negotiations in the future, when conditions are much clearer here.”

Two months later, it is harder to argue that the peace initiative’s terms are written in stone. On Monday, the Arab League — which formally adopted the proposal at a March 2002 summit in Beirut — for the first time showed some flexibility in allowing that, to reach a final settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, “comparable,” mutually agreed and “minor” land swaps could be possible.

After both Israeli and Palestinian leaders signaled a certain satisfaction with the Arab League’s move, it seems that a renewal of peace talks may be imminent. But would such talks actually stand a chance? Is the fact that the Arab League now seems to have wrapped its mind around the idea that Israel will never agree to fully withdraw to the 1967 lines enough to enable a breakthrough?

‘In a way, it puts the ball in Israel’s court. It is really now going to be up to Israel to respond to this in some way’

After all, the idea of mutually agreed land swaps has been around for more than a decade, and has been accepted, to varying degrees, by all parties involved. Also, the Saudi-inspired peace initiative asks for more than an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank; some of its demands are ostensible nonstarters for Israel’s newly elected government, such as returning to Golan Heights and dividing Jerusalem.

Still, “this is a significant development in several areas,” said Middle East expert and historian Joshua Teitelbaum. “In a way, it puts the ball in Israel’s court. It is really now going to be up to Israel to respond to this in some way, either through an initiative of its own or beginning to explore the peace process based on the positive aspects of the Arab initiative.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tacitly welcomed the steps to advance the peace process taken by the Arab League. “Israel is ready to start negotiations — anytime, anywhere — without any preconditions,” an Israeli official told The Times of Israel Wednesday. Israeli politicians from the left and the center, ranging from opposition leader Shelly Yachimovich (Labor) to cabinet members such as Minister Yaakov Peri (Yesh Atid), were pleased with the renewed initiative and urged the government to see it as a real opportunity to advance the peace process.

US Secretary of State John Kerry, who hosted the Arab League delegation in Washington that announced its softened stance on the 67 lines, sounded even more optimistic. While the path to a peace agreement was still long, “I don’t think you can underestimate… the significance of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, [United] Arab Emirates, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, and others coming to the table and saying, ‘We are prepared to make peace now in 2013,’” he said.

Teitelbaum, a senior researcher at Bar-Ilan University’s Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, assessed that “chances are not good” for the current government to reach a final-status agreement based solely on the Arab League’s slightly more flexible stance. Yet he called on Jerusalem not let this opening go unnoticed in Arab capitals.

“At times, Israel needs to acknowledge when there’s flexibility on the other end,” he said. “For many years it was a take-it-or-leave-it proposal, and now it’s not anymore. Now they accepted some language that is not entirely objectionable to Israel and many aspects of this peace initiative are acceptable to Israel.”

The author of a comprehensive paper about Israel’s position regarding the Arab peace initiative, Teitelbaum said that despite this week’s modification, there are still many gaps between the Arab and Israeli positions that might prove difficult to bridge.

“There are some nonstarters; they are very difficult and they’re not going away,” noted Teitelbaum, who also serves as consultant for several US and Israeli government agencies. “The question is, tactically, should Israel answer in the positive and say that we have objections to the peace initiative but since now the Arab League has shown some flexibility we will be willing to discuss it in an acceptable forum? That would go a long way toward positioning Israel as a state that is pursuing peace. And it would improve our relations with the United States. It could be a very positive development.”

Netanyahu, Obama and Abbas during a meeting in New York in 2009 (photo credit: Avi Ohayon/GPO/Flash90)Netanyahu, Obama and Abbas during a meeting in New York in 2009 (photo credit: Avi Ohayon/GPO/Flash90)

Gershon Baskin, the co-chairman and founder of the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information, concurred.

“Israel has complained that the Arab peace initiative doesn’t take into account changes that have happened on the ground since 1967,” he said. “In agreeing to the principle of territorial swaps, they have in fact adopted what was the position of George W. Bush in his famous letter to Ariel Sharon.”

In April of 2004, the former US president wrote to the Israeli leader that “in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.” Rather, Bush wrote, it is “realistic to expect” that a peace agreement will be on “the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”

Already back in 2000, then-US president Bill Clinton spoke of a “land swap,” in what came to be known as the “Clinton parameters.” At the time, Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak accepted the proposal, albeit with certain reservations. The idea of annexing the settlement blocs to Israel and offering the Palestinians territory from Israel proper in return has since been cited countless times as a model to arrive at a two-state solution.

“We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps,” US President Barack Obama declared in May 2011. This proposition has been accepted, in principle, by both Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and the previous Israeli government under Ehud Olmert. (Netanyahu’s idea of a two-state solution remains unclear.)

So if territorial swaps are a generally agreed-upon concept, is the Arab League’s acceptance of it really such a big deal?

It is, said Akiva Eldar, a veteran Israeli reporter on the peace process. “Up until now, the Americans paid lip service to the Arab Peace Initiative, and Obama mentioned it in his speeches, but there weren’t any official diplomatic contacts to move the process from a bilateral level to a regional peace initiative that also involves the Arab countries,” he said.

“It’s a formal upgrade,” Eldar added. “Up until now, the idea of land swaps was merely an ‘oral tradition.’ Now, the Arab states authorized [Abbas] to reach an agreement that’s based on the Clinton parameters, the road map proposed by the Middle East Quartet, and previous agreements.

It is also important to note that the Arab League’s overture comes at a time of regional upheaval, said Eldar, who wrote for many years for Haaretz and is now a senior columnist at Al Monitor. Despite, or maybe because of, worries about Syria falling apart and Iran heading toward a nuclear weapon, the Arab League is willing to soften its stance vis-a-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

A general view of the Arab League summit in Doha, Qatar, Tuesday, March 26 (photo credit: AP/Ghiath Mohamad)A general view of the Arab League summit in Doha, Qatar, Tuesday, March 26 (photo credit: AP/Ghiath Mohamad)

Even Egypt, which is ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood, supports the adjustment of the 2002 peace offer, Eldar pointed out. “The initiative contains the words ‘normal relations’ [with Israel], which is very hard for an Islamist state to accept, but these words are still there. It’s very significant that today they can talk about this. And it also isolates Hamas, which is not ready to recognize Israel’s right to exist,” he said.

Still, despite the ostensible rapprochement, some pundits don’t see how the mere acceptance of land swaps could help reach a genuine breakthrough.

Barry Rubin, director of the Herzliya-based Global Research in International Affairs Center, thinks the Arab peace initiative is “both a good thing and a scam.” While he agrees that the Gulf States are ready to consider ending the conflict with Israel, partly because they are afraid of Iran and could use good publicity in the West, there are a number of issues he thinks will make peace on the Arab League’s terms impossible.

First of all, Rubin doubts that all countries which signed on to the initiative really mean it. “Are we to believe that the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt, the Hezbollah-dominated regime in Lebanon, and the quirky but pro-Hamas and pro-Muslim Brotherhood regime in Qatar have suddenly reversed everything that they have been saying in order to seek a compromise peace with Israel? Highly doubtful to say the least,” he wrote.

Rubin also points to several provisions in the text of the Arab Peace Initiative that were hardly mentioned in the media coverage this week, and that in his view will kill any prospects of a deal. For instance, the initiative calls for a “just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem,” which he understands to mean that Israel would have to accept “the immigration of hundreds of thousands of passionately anti-Israel Palestinians” within its borders.

However, Israeli proponents of the initiative point to a clause in the draft that states that any solution to the refugee question needs “to be agreed upon,” meaning that Israel will have a definitive say in the number of Palestinians who would enter its territory.

The Arab League initiative also contains several other possible deal-breakers: a demand to make East Jerusalem the capital of a future Palestinian state; a provision allowing Arab states to refuse to take in Palestinian refugees; and a call for Israel to return the Golan Heights to Syria. To whom should Israel give the Golan?, some analysts wonder: Syria is deeply embattled in a bloody civil war, with no side willing — or able — to sign, much less honor, an agreement with Israel.

Yet more optimistic pundits say that none of the issues is unsolvable. With regards to Syria, the Arab League is willing to leave a seat empty for Syria, suggested Eldar, just like Jews do for the Prophet Elijah on seder night.

“Even the Arabs understand that now is not the time; they are not expecting Israel to return to the 1967 lines in the Golan. They are rational enough to know there is no one with whom to conduct negotiations. But it leaves an opening for the moment there is a proper government in Syria,” he said.

The division of Jerusalem is another key element of the Arab Peace Initiative that will likely prevent the current government from accepting it as the basis for peace talks.

Yair Lapid, leader of the Yesh Atid political party, seen embracing Jewish Home leader Naftali Bennett in the Knesset, February, 2013. (photo credit: Miriam Alster/FLASH90)Yair Lapid, leader of the Yesh Atid political party, seen embracing Jewish Home leader Naftali Bennett in the Knesset, February, 2013. (photo credit: Miriam Alster/FLASH90)

Netanyahu is a staunch opponent of any plan that would divide the city. So are the two key allies in his coalition — centrist Finance Minister Yair Lapid and Economy Minister Naftali Bennett, of the right-wing Jewish Home party.

“I’ve been saying and writing for a long time that there is an Arab partner but there is no Israeli partner,” Eldar said. The only way for the current government to endorse the peace plan is for Lapid “to wake up and realize the potential he has,” he added. “He could bring down the government. But I don’t believe that will happen.”

Baskin, who two years ago initiated the secret back channel between Israel and Hamas that led to the release of Gilad Shalit, believes that a final-status agreement is possible — even with the current government. In the past, more than one Israeli leader pledged never to touch Jerusalem, only to later conduct serious negotiations about its division, he said. “Peace negotiations have a dynamic of their own.”

================================================================
amd from Uri Avnery:

Uri Avnery

May 4, 2013

 

                                                No, We Can’t!

 

 

AN AMBASSADOR is an honest man sent abroad to lie for the good of his country, a British statesman famously wrote some 400 years ago. That is true, of course, for all diplomats.

 

The question is whether the diplomat lies only to others, or also to himself.

 

I am asking this these days when I follow the arduous efforts of John Kerry, the new American foreign secretary, to jump-start the Israeli-Arab “peace process”.

 

Kerry seems to be an honest man. A serious man. A patient man. But does he really believe that his endeavors will lead anywhere?

 

 

TRUE, THIS week Kerry did achieve a remarkable success.

 

A delegation of Arab foreign ministers, including the Palestinian, met with him in Washington. They were led by the Qatari prime minister – a relative of the Emir, of course – whose country is assuming a more and more prominent role in the Arab world.

 

At the meeting, the ministers emphasized that the Arab Peace Initiative is still valid.

 

This initiative, forged 10 years ago by the then Saudi Crown Prince (and present King) Abdullah, was endorsed by the entire Arab League in the March 2002 Summit Conference in Beirut. Yasser Arafat could not attend, because Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced that if he left the country, he would not be allowed to return. But Arafat officially accepted the initiative.

 

It will be remembered that soon after the 1967 war, the Arab Summit Conference in Khartoum promulgated the Three Noes: No peace with Israel, No recognition of Israel, No negotiations with Israel. The new initiative was a total reversal of that resolution, which was born out of humiliation and despair.

 

The Saudi initiative was reaffirmed unanimously in the 2007 Summit Conference in Riyadh. All Arab rulers attended, including Mahmoud Abbas of Palestine who voted in favor, excluding only Muammar Gaddafi of Libya.

 

The initiative says unequivocally that all Arab countries would announce the end of the Arab-Israeli conflict, sign peace treaties with Israel, and institute normal relations with Israel. In return, Israel would withdraw to the June 4, 1967 border (the Green Line). The State of Palestine, with its capital in East Jerusalem, would be established. The refugee problem would be solved by agreement (meaning agreement with Israel).  

 

As I wrote at the time, if anyone had told us in May 1967 that the Arab world would make such an offer, they would have been locked up in an institution for the mentally ill. But those of us who advocated the acceptance of the Arab initiative were branded as traitors.

 

In his conference with the Arab ministers this week, John Kerry succeeded in pushing them a step further. They agreed to add that the 1967 Green Line may be changed by swaps of territories. This means that the large settlements along the border, where the great majority of the settlers reside, would be annexed to Israel, in return for largely inferior Israeli land.

 

 

WHEN THE initiative was first aired, the Israeli government was desperately looking for a way out.

 

The first excuse that sprang to mind – then as always – was the refugee problem. It is easy to create panic in Israel with the nightmare of millions of refugees “flooding” Israel, putting an end to the Jewishness of the Jewish State.

 

Sharon, the Prime Minister at the time, willfully ignored the crucial clause inserted by the Saudis into their plan: that there would be an “agreed” solution. This clearly means that Israel was accorded the right to veto any solution. In practice, this would amount to the return of a symbolic number, if any at all.

 

Why did the initiative mention the refugees at all? Well, no Arab could possibly publish a peace plan that did not mention them. Even so, the Lebanese objected to the clause, because it would leave the refugees in Lebanon.

 

But the refugees are always a useful bogeyman. Then and now.

 

 

ONE DAY before the original Saudi initiative was submitted to the Beirut Summit, on March 27, 2002, something terrible happened: Hamas terrorists carried out a massacre in Netanya, with 40 dead and hundreds wounded. It was on the eve of Passover, the joyous Jewish holiday.

 

The Israeli public was inflamed. Sharon immediately responded that In these circumstances, the Arab peace initiative would not even be considered. Never mind that the atrocity was committed by Hamas with the express purpose of sabotaging the Saudi initiative and undermining Arafat, who supported it. Sharon mendaciously blamed Arafat for the bloody deed, and that was that.

 

Curiously – or maybe not – a similar thing happened this week. On the very day the upgraded Arab initiative was published, a young Palestinian killed a settler with a knife at a checkpoint – the first Jew killed in the West Bank for more than a year and a half.

 

The victim, Evyatar Borowsky, was the 31-year old father of five children – usual for an orthodox man. He was a resident of the Yitzhar settlement near Nablus, perhaps the most extreme anti-Arab settlement in the entire West Bank. He looked like the quintessential ideological settler – blond, bearded, with East-European looks, long payot (side locks), and a large colored kippah. The perpetrator came from the Palestinian town of Tulkarm. He was shot and severely injured. He is now in an Israeli hospital.

 

Before the incident, Netanyahu had been hard at work to formulate a statement that would reject the peace initiative without insulting the Americans. After the killing, he decided that there was no need. The terrorist has done his job. (As an old Jewish saying goes: “The work of the righteous one is done by others”.)

 

Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, who is in charge of the (nonexistent) negotiations with the Palestinians, and President Shimon Peres welcomed the Arab statement. But Livni’s influence in the government is next to nil, and Peres is by now a joke in Israel.

 

 

IF THE American Secretary of State really believes that he can nudge our government slowly and gradually to “meaningful” negotiation with the Palestinians, he is deluding himself. If he does not believe it, he is trying to delude others.

 

There have been no real negotiations with the Palestinians since Ehud Barak came back from the Camp David conference in 2000, waving the slogan “We Have No Partner for Peace”. With this he destroyed the Israeli peace movement and brought Ariel Sharon to power.

 

Before that, there were no real negotiations either. Yitzhak Shamir announced that he was happy to negotiate for ever. (Shamir, by the way, declared that it was a virtue to “lie for the fatherland”.) Documents were produced and gathered dust, conferences were photographed and forgotten, agreements were signed and made no real difference. Nothing moved. Nothing – apart from settlement activity, that is.

 

Why? How would anyone entertain the belief that from now on everything would be different?       

 

Kerry will elicit some more words from the Arabs. Some more promises from Netanyahu. There may even be a festive opening of a new round of negotiations, a great victory for President Obama and Kerry.

 

But nothing will change. Negotiations will just drag on. And on. And on.

 

For the same reason that there has been no movement in the past, there will be no movement in the future – unless…

 

 

UNLESS. UNLESS Obama takes the bull by the horns, which, it seems, he is exceedingly unwilling to do.

 

The horns of the bull are the horns of the dilemma, on which Israel is sitting.

 

It is the historic choice facing us: Greater Israel or Peace?

 

Peace, any conceivable peace, the very basis of the Arab Initiative, means Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories and the establishment of the State of Palestine in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with its capital in East Jerusalem. No ifs, no buts, no perhapses.

 

The opposite of peace is Israeli rule over the whole of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, in one form or another. (Lately, some despairing Israeli peaceniks have been embracing this, in the absurd hope that in this Greater Israel, Israel would grant equality to the Arabs.)

 

If President Obama has the will and the power to compel the government of Israel to make this historic decision and choose peace, may the political price for the president be as it may, then he should proceed.

 

If this will and this power do not exist, the whole great peace effort is an exercise in deception, and honorable men should not indulge in it.

 

They should honestly face the two sides and the world and tell them:

 

No, We Can’t.

 

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on April 24th, 2013
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

We post the following because we were present in New York City at the first dinner Rabbi Marc Schneier hosted the Bahraini Ambassador to the UN. That was at the time an extension of Rabbi Schneier’s outreach to Muslims in the US – when he organized joint dinners between Jewish and Muslim communities in various places in the US. Eventually common interests will lead the way to the de-Jure acceptance of Israel as well.

 

New Header 

Gulf states ready for peace, says well-connected US rabbi

Marc Schneier, who has good ties with Bahraini royal family, urges Netanyahu to take a page out of the Sadat playbook and make the first public overture

Rabbi Marc Schneier with King Hamad at the Bahraini Crown Palace, December 2011. (photo Walter Ruby/Foundation for Et hnic Understanding)

By Raphael Ahren

April 23, 2013

Israel should publicly commend Bahrain for labeling Hezbollah a terrorist organization and it should try to build strategic alliances with all Gulf states based on a common opposition to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, a prominent American rabbi with ties to the Bahraini royal family said.

Rabbi Marc Schneier, an American congregational leader who recently met with the Bahraini king and the crown prince, urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to visit an Arab country and seize Israel and Sunni Muslims’ common distrust of Tehran as a path toward warming relations with parts of the Arab world.

However, an expert on the politics of the gulf states said that while Bahrain’s move to blacklist Hezbollah did present “an opening,” a real improvement of bilateral ties remains elusive and would likely stay under the radar.

“We’re so myopic, we’re so focused on Europe, and here you have a very significant development that took place in Bahrain,” Schneier told The Times of Israel, referring to the tiny Gulf state’s recent decision to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization. “I am calling for a conversation to take place, a conversation that needs to begin within Israel about looking east, not only looking west.”

Schneier bemoaned the fact that the Bahraini parliament’s March 26 decision to outlaw the Lebanese-Shiite group received little press coverage in Israel, and that Jerusalem didn’t comment at all.

“No one’s even discussing this,” he lamented. “After Bahrain passed this legislation, I was simply amazed how little attention this was given in Israel. It is a landmark event, particularly because it’s an Arab country that has called on other Arab countries to follow suit.”

“Israel needs to remember it lives in the Middle East and not in the Middle West,” Schneier added. “There is an opportunity to begin to create some kind of strategic alliance with the gulf states, which have been very expressive about their concerns about Iran and its satellite organizations like Hezbollah.”

The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem declined to comment on Schneier’s remarks, but a diplomatic official told The Times of Israel that “If the Bahrainis had wanted Israel to say something, they could have sent us a message through diplomatic channels. Since they didn’t, we didn’t.”

The Bahraini Foreign Ministry did not respond to a Times of Israel query on this matter.

Schneier, perhaps best known for being the founder of The Hampton Synagogue, which is frequented by affluent and prominent US Jews, is the co-founder and president of the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding.

In the framework of his interfaith work, he developed a relationship with Bahrain’s ambassador to the US, Houda Nonoo, the first Jew to represent an Arab country in Washington. In December 2011, Schneier was received by King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa at the royal palace in Manama. The king told him that Bahrain and Israel have a common enemy in Iran. He has been in “close contact with the royal family ever since,” Schneier said.

Rabbi Marc Schneier with Crown Prince of Bahrain Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, who is also deputy supreme commander and first deputy prime minister (photo credit: courtesy Foundation for Ethnic Understanding)

In March, Schneier returned to Manama to meet with the heir apparent, Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, who is also the deputy supreme commander of the Bahraini army and first deputy prime minister. He “validated and reconfirmed” his father’s statements about Israel and Iran, Schneier said.

Israel and Bahrain do not maintain diplomatic relations, but in 2005 King Hamad told the US ambassador that his state has contacts with Israel “at the intelligence/security level (i.e., with Mossad),” according to a secret US diplomatic cable published two years ago by the whistleblower website WikiLeaks. He also indicated willingness “to move forward in other areas, although it will be difficult for Bahrain to be the first.” The development of “trade contacts,” though, would have to wait for the implementation of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the king told the ambassador.

Other WikiLeaks documents show that senior officials from both countries have spoken in recent years, such as a 2007 meeting between then-foreign minister Tzipi Livni and Bahraini foreign minister Sheikh Khaled bin Ahmed Al Khalifa in New York. The Bahraini foreign minister in 2009 also signaled that he was willing to meet Netanyahu to try to advance the peace process, but ultimately decided not to go ahead with the plan.

Frederic Wehrey, a senior associate in the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, agreed that the gulf states and Israel have a common foe in Iran. “The designation of Hezbollah is certainly an opening; it shows that they’re concerned about this non-state actor that Israel obviously regards as a dire threat as well,” he said.

 

However, a real rapprochement between Manama and Jerusalem remains unlikely, asserted Wehrey, who focuses on political reform and security issues in the Arab Gulf states and US policy in the Middle East. “On a strategic level, yes, there is a shared threat, but that doesn’t negate the very issue they’re facing from domestic parties and their populations. Many Bahrainis and citizens of other gulf states feel strongly about the Palestinian cause and the governments will therefore have to tread very carefully in how it approaches relations to Israel,” he said. “If there are ties, they would be under the table and hidden from the public view.”

According to the website of the kingdom’s foreign ministry, Bahrain supports the creation of a Palestinian state within the pre-1967 lines and the “right of return of Palestinian refugees.” Manama also holds Jerusalem responsible “for the unfortunate, deteriorating, and painful situation in the Palestinian lands as a result of Israel’s aggressive practices including: assassinations; settlement-building; and the erection of the Separation Wall; as well as attacking holy places, and imposing economic blockades,” the site states.

It is not even clear why Israel would want to develop overt ties with Bahrain, added Wehrey, noting that the autocratic regime is currently facing enormous criticism for its poor human rights record and the way it suppresses public unrest. A strong affiliation with such a state – which is not a regional powerhouse like, for instance, Saudi Arabia – “might actually damage Israel’s position,” he said.

But Schneier, speaking to The Times of Israel from his home in New York, believes that if Jerusalem made a genuine effort to negotiate a peace treaty with the Palestinians, then Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Oman would be willing to recognize Israel and normalize relations. “All gulf states are ready,” he said. “We now have the opportunity, or the tension, to move that thing along because of Iran.”

The rabbi called on Netanyahu to make the first step by approaching the Arab states. “I believe the prime minister should take a page out of Sadat’s playbook and either show up at one of the capitals of the gulf states or appear before the Arab League,” he said, referring to Egyptian president Anwar Sadat’s 1977 visit to Israel, which laid the foundation for a peace agreement between the two countries signed two years later.

 

“There is a precedent for it,” Schneier said. “As long as Israel continues to do its share at trying to arrive at a resolution with the Palestinian people, then I believe there is an opportunity here.”

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on April 14th, 2013
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

 

 

Saudi Kingdom to halt wheat production by 2016

The Kingdom is likely to totally depend on wheat imports starting from 2016, says Waleed El-Khereiji, head of Grains and Silos Flour …

—————————————————————-

Saudi- ‘Big opportunity’ in SR 1 bn biscuit market
Saudi Arabia is one of the primary emerging markets for top biscuits maker Britannia and it sees big opportunities in the Kingdom because …

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on April 5th, 2013
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Search Results

  1. News for Did a Saudi judge order paralysis ?

    1. Saudi judge orders man surgically paralyzed to pay for childhood stabbing

      New York Daily News ?- 1 day ago
      A Saudi court has ordered that 24-year-old Ali Al-Khawahir be surgically I think about my son’s fate and that he will have to be paralyzed.”
  2. Saudi court orders man to be paralyzed as an Islamic punishment

    worldnews.nbcnews.com/_…/17601030-saudi-court-orders-m...

    1 day ago – A young Saudi man faces being forcibly paralyzed as a punishment under she did not have even a fraction of this money, meaning the court

  3. Saudi Arabian court orders man to be surgically paralysed in ‘eye for

    Robert Williams
    by Robert Williams – in 25 Google+ circles – More by Robert Williams

    2 days ago – A Saudi Arabian court has ruled that a man should be paralysed as punishment for but your IP address will be logged to prevent abuse of this feature. Amnesty claims that the paralysis sentence would contravene the UN

  4. Saudi court orders criminal to be surgically paralyzed – The Globe

    2 days ago – Saudi court orders criminal to be surgically paralyzed Add to . A government-approved Saudi human rights group did not respond to requests

  5. Saudi judge orders man surgically paralyzed to pay – Mixed Martial

    1 day ago – A Saudi court has ordered that 24-year-old Ali Al-Khawahir be surgically paralyzed as A decade later and he will now be paralyzed for life.

  6. Surgical Paralysis Ordered in Saudi Arabia as Punishment for

    Steven Nelson
    by Steven Nelson – in 59 Google+ circles – More by Steven Nelson

    1 day ago – Surgical Paralysis Ordered in Saudi Arabia as Punishment for Ali Al-Khawahir, 24, is awaiting court-ordered surgical paralysis in Saudi Arabia for an and said the defendants did not have legal representation during court

  7. Saudi court sentences man to paralysis

    www.philly.com/…/20130404_Saudis_sentence_man_to_paral
    1 day ago – Unless he can quickly raise $270,000, a Saudi man will soon face court-ordered surgical paralysis from the waist down, Amnesty International
  8. Britain ‘concerned’ after Saudi Arabia ‘orders man to be paralysed

    1 day ago – Saudi Arabian courtorders man to be paralysed’ has sentenced a man to be paralysed in retribution for causing the paralysis of a friend when he was fourteen years old. John Kerry: US will ‘empower’ Syria opposition

  9. Saudi judge orders man surgically paralyzed to – Contacto Latino

    contacto-latino.com/…/saudi-judge-orders-man-surgically-para

    Saudi judge orders man surgically paralyzed to pay for childhood stabbing. By NY Daily News Latino | Published: 2013-04-04 19:47:21 UTC | Read more, click

  10. Saudi judge orders man surgically paralyzed to – One News Page

    1 day ago – Saudi judge orders man surgically paralyzed to pay for childhood his friend in the back and paralyzing him will be surgically paralyzed

Reports of Saudi Paralysis Sentence (Taken Question)

Taken Question

Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
April 5, 2013

Question: What is the U.S. response to reports that a Saudi judge gave a court order for a prisoner to be surgically paralyzed?

Answer: If these reports are true, they would be incredibly disturbing. We expect the Saudi Government to respect international human rights norms. We regularly make this point as part of our bilateral dialogue.



PRN: 2013/0374

—————————————————————-

Texas Refinery Is Saudi Foothold in U.S. Market.

By CLIFFORD KRAUSS

The Motiva refinery in Port Arthur, the largest in the United States, ensures a bigger market for Saudi crude and a stronger global voice for the kingdom.

 

==================================

www.timesofisrael.com/report-shell-to-dump-firm-over-its-ties-to-israel/?utm_source=The+Times+of+Israel+Daily+Edition&utm_campaign=004fe980fe-2013_04_05&utm_medium=email

 

This can now be seen in context!

 

Jewish Times // The Times of Israel

‘Shell to dump energy firm over its ties to Israel’

Australia’s Woodside Petroleum has a 30-percent interest in Israel’s Leviathan natural gas field

April 5, 2013, 3:28 pm 2

 

THE HAGUE (JTA) – Royal Dutch Shell declined to comment on reports that it will divest its stake in an Australian energy firm because of that firm’s investment in Israel’s gas fields.

According to the RTL Dutch television network, a spokesperson for Shell said on Wednesday that he had no comment on a report by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia which said Shell would likely dump its 23.1-percent stake in Australia’s Woodside Petroleum.

The report said Shell planned the move to avoid the risk of boycott by Arab countries following Woodside’s agreement to purchase a 30-percent interest in Israel’s Leviathan natural gas field. RTL reported that Shell’s stake in Woodside is worth more then $7 billion.

Last year, Shell said that involvement with Woodside was “incompatible” with Shell’s “long-term plans.”

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on April 4th, 2013
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

 

Agreement for the export of Iraqi oil through Jordan within days

He and Iraqi Oil Minister Abdul Karim and coffee yesterday that the next few days will witness the signing of the Jordanian-Iraqi transport …

———–===============================================———–

Baghdad warns of Kurdistan oil pipeline to Turkey
Oil Ministry has warned the Turkish side of the Iraqi oil pipeline from the Kurdistan region through its territory without the consent of the government …

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on April 1st, 2013
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Saudi Arabia follows an ultraconservative – or should we say orthodox – interpretation of Islam, and bans women from driving. Women are also banned from riding motorcycles or bicycles in public places.

Let us see – AP relates from RIYADH, Saudi Arabia  —  that A Saudi newspaper today,  Monday April 1, 2013 -  said  -  “the kingdom’s religious police are now allowing women to ride motorbikes and bicycles — but only in restricted, recreational areas.”

The Al-Yawm daily cited an unnamed official from the powerful religious police as saying women will be allowed to ride bikes in parks and recreational areas – but they must accompanied by a male relative and dressed in the full Islamic head-to-toe abaya.

The newspaper didn’t say what triggered the lifting of the ban.

The official told the paper that Saudi women may not use the bikes for transportation, but “only for entertainment,” and that they should shun places where young men gather – “to avoid harassment.”

THEIR BREAK-THROUGH ACHIEVEMENT  WILL NOT IMPACT THE PRICE OF OIL!

 

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 23rd, 2013
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Green Prophet Headlines – Architectural Pornography: Saudi Arabia’s Kingdom Tower www.greenprophet.com/


 

Saudi Arabia announced its Kingdom Tower, a skyscraper aiming for a new world height record of over 1 kilometer high in the sky.

 

Architectural Pornography: Saudi Arabia’s Kingdom TowerPosted: 22 Mar 2013.

Saudi Arabia announced its Kingdom Tower, a skyscraper aiming for a new world height record of over 1 kilometer high in the sky.

Boys, boys, boys, when will you learn that size doesn’t matter as much as performance? Next Azerbaijan broadcast plans to top that with their own mile-high cloud-puncher. Then Pakistan upstaged both with their own biggest building boast. And performance brings us full circle back to Team Saudi who just commissioned the project delivery team for their kilometer-high Kingdom Tower. Is this engineering ingenuity or architectural porn?

Actions speak louder than empty press releases. Obama may have scratched another trip to the moon, but, regrettably, the terrestrial race towards the heavens is on.

Green Prophet’s told you all about Saudi Arabia’s Kingdom Tower. First conceived years back, geological testing commenced in 2008 for the planned one-mile-high structure. That initial engineering resulted in a down-sizing of tower height, which still bests Dubai’s Burj Khalifa.

Now Kingdom Tower is off the theoretical and into production. Its staying power lies in its wider context of regional development and in the deep pockets of its owner, billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. The Prince likes his things big.

The Tower is the centerpiece of an ambitious urban development project called Kingdom City, a phased construction on 2 square miles of undeveloped waterfront property near the Red Sea port city of Jeddah. Once the Tower’s erected, they’ll be multiple phases of expansion and major infrastructure works to support it all.

British-based EC Harris and Mace have hooked up to provide project, commercial and design management for the $1.2 billion development which will break ground later this year. (Construction, by Bin Laden Group, is planned to wrap up in six years.)

This team’s delivered over 100 skyscrapers including London’s Shard and Abu Dhabi’s The Landmark. Adrian Smith, the American architect behind the Burj Khalifa and New York City’s Trump Tower, is the designer.

Stack up those four skyscrapers and you could run a 5k race along their facades without ever treading on something sustainable. Despite their sky-high project price tags, they are devoid of innovative design elements that would reduce their gargantuan environmental impacts or enhance occupant safety.

Consider the waste generated, the power and water consumed, the resultant road congestion, and the devastating impact on local real estate. Consider the thousands of birds who die in collisions with the acres of tower skin (ornithologist Daniel Klem, Jr. estimates that collisions with skyscraper glass kills up to 1 billion birds a year in the United States alone). Are Jeddah emergency services equipped to handle fires a kilometer above ground? Think of the attraction for splashy acts of terror.

Then read through their project press releases. You’ll find nothing to address those previous questions, but spot a few ho-hum green features including proximity to mass transit, high performance thermal glass, and efficient plumbing fixtures. The same can be said about my little apartment which was built over 25 years ago.

Middle Eastern mega-projects tend to chase world records in terms of manly dimensions or bloated price tags. What would it take to incite project teams to hit new heights in green technologies? Buildings made from smart materials that don’t deplete already-stressed water resources, with on-site renewable energy-generation. International media would eat it up, and it would be a powerful project differentiator for all stakeholders to lay claim to, with bragging rights to the host nation.

Call me Miss Cranky, but these competitions to see whose is biggest are better suited for the locker room and not the world construction stage.

————————————————————————————–

 

 

World’s Next Largest Tower to be Built in Saudi, For Real

|

 

unsustainable development, Kingdom Tower, Saudi Arabia  Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill make their own announcement: they’re designing the Kingdom Tower, but it won’t be a mile high.

 

Every blogger who gives a toot about sustainable building fell over themselves earlier this year to mock Saudi’s mile high tower. We all bought the story without really thinking about what such a tall building might look like; but there’s a very good reason we fell for what turned out to be a dirty news leak: absurd stuff like this actually happens in the Middle East.

 

Recently a billionaire Sheikh from Abu Dhabi etched his name – Hamad – into the sands of a one mile stretch of island. His self-aggrandizing graffiti is visible from space. And Dubai has the 2,651 foot Burj al Khalifa tower. Perhaps feeling left out of the cockshow, Saudi has now officially commissioned Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill to design a 3,280-foot spacescraper – skyscraper just doesn’t seem high enough- that will surpass the Burj as the world’s next tallest tower.

 

unsustainable development, Saudi Arabia No restraint

 

World Architecture News recently announced that Dubai will not bid for the Olympics because it needs to focus on its own security and peace, showing uncharacteristic restraint. Saudi Arabia shows no such thing.

 

His Royal Highness Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Alsaud, nephew of Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah and chairman of Kingdom Holding Company, today announced this newest addition to a slew of flashy Arab projects that always have disastrous environmental ramifications.

 

Part of the 17.4 million square foot Kingdom City development project, the Kingdom Tower alone will take up 5.7 million square feet of  north Jeddah, a sea port town along the Red Sea and the gateway to Saudi Arabia’s holiest city Mecca.

 

Saudi Arabia, unsustainable developmentTaller than the tallest

 

568 feet taller than the world’s current tallest building also designed by Adrian Smith while at Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, the Kingdom Tower will feature a Four Seasons hotel, Four Seasons serviced apartments, Class A office space, luxury condominiums and the world’s highest observatory.

 

Construction of the $1.2 billion tower is expected to begin as soon as possible and the entire Kingdom City project is anticipated to cost at least $20 billion.


###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 20th, 2013
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Saddam Hussein
Former President of Iraq
Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti was the fifth President of Iraq, serving in this capacity from 16 July 1979 until 9 April 2003. Wikipedia

Books

Saddam speaks on the Gulf crisis

Saddam speaks on the Gulf c…

————————————————————————————————————

People also search for

Nouri al-Maliki

Nouri al-Maliki

==============================================================

New York Times Editorials of March 20, 2013 – The Print Version:

Editorial

Ten Years After

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

An ill-conceived war continues to affect American policy.

 Editorial: Iraq’s Fragile Future

Editorial

Iraq’s Fragile Future

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

Iraq continues to face political strife, sectarian violence and corruption and mismanagement.

Editorial

For the G.O.P., It’s Not Just the Message

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

If Republican leaders want a broader appeal, they should re-examine their divisive policies.

—————————————————————————————-

 

Op-Ed Contributor

A Decade of Despair

By AHMAD SAADAWI

Outside, the bombs went off. Inside, we toasted the queen.

Op-Ed Contributor

Iraq: Where Terrorists Go to School

By JESSICA STERN

Qaeda-affiliated militants drawn to Iraq since 2003 have been battle-tested. They are taking the fight to neighboring countries, especially Syria.

Op-Ed Columnist

Democrats, Dragons or Drones?

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Iraq might seem to have been the last place in the Middle East we should have tried to help establish a democracy, but it was the most important.

———————————————————————————-

OPINION | Op-Ed Contributor

What America Learned in Iraq

By JOHN A. NAGL

Some hope that the enormous price of the Iraq war was not paid entirely in vain.

——————————————————————————-

 

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 8th, 2013
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Gaza Marathon Canceled After Women Are Barred From Participating.

By FARES AKRAM
Published by The New York Times – March 5, 2013

GAZA — Gaza’s third marathon run, an annual fund-raising event planned for April 10, was canceled after the Palestinian territory’s Islamic leaders barred women from participating, the organizer, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency said on Tuesday.


The ban is the latest in a series of decisions by Hamas, which governs here, seeking to enforce tougher Islamic strictures on an already conservative society. But some of the measures have been unpopular, and enforcement has ebbed and flowed.

Adnan Abu Hasna, a spokesman for the United Nations agency, said the marathon was canceled after Hamas informed the agency that women would not be allowed to take part under any circumstances.

Of the more than 2,400 people registered for the race, some 370 were women, nearly two-thirds of them Gazans.

Hamas had no objection to the participation of girls among the 1,600 schoolchildren set to run.

In a statement, the agency called the development “disappointing.” It said runners who intended to come from outside Gaza to race were still welcome to visit the coastal enclave, and that alternative activities were being studied.

Taher al-Nounou, a spokesman for the Hamas government, said in a text message that his government had informed the United Nations agency that the marathon should respect “some regulations related to the Palestinian people’s traditions and customs.” He said the government regretted the cancellation.

Salma al-Qadoumi, 22, who was among more than 250 female Gazans who intended to run, said she was “saddened and shocked” by the ban. “This is against Islam, because Islam encouraged Muslims to learn sports, and it did not stipulate that it’s only men who should practice sport,” she said.

But Maha Abu Shaban, an economic researcher, supported the ban, to preserve modesty and prevent mixing of males and females “in violation of the religion.”

Mr. Abu Hasna said the fund-raising was to benefit the agency’s summer games programs, which serve about 250,000 children. Hamas also provides summer programs for children here, and competes with the agency for enrollment.

The agency, which takes care of Palestinian refugees in Gaza, the West Bank, and refugee camps in the neighboring Arab countries, suffers from a $66 million shortfall in its budget.

Since taking over Gaza in 2007, Hamas has issued several orders for stricter behavioral codes, mainly about women’s dress. Last month, the Hamas-appointed council of Al-Aqsa University here imposed an Islamic dress code on women.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 4th, 2013
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Israel – a hub of a true Alliance of Civilization developed its medical sector with the help of Jewish refugees from a Europe under Nazi boots. Many Professors at the first modern medical school in the Middle East escaped from Vienna, then part of the joint Austro-Germany under Hitler’s leadership. Today, Jewish refugees from Muslim States – from Morocco to Iran – and Arab/Palestinian-Israelis – are members of the medical staff as well.

This posting is for the benefit of Messrs. Erdogan,  Ahmedi-Nejad, and Morsi.

Ailing Turkish Politician Treated in Israel

March 3, 2013 2:17 pm     3 comments
Kemal Unakitan. Photo: Haber5.

A senior member of the Turkish government, former Finance Minister Kemal Unakitan, recently visited Israel for stem cell treatment. Unakitan, who is suffering from chronic renal failure, served seven years with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government from 2002-2009.

According to Turkish media, the 67-year-old Turkish politician was treated at Tel Aviv’s International Center for Cell Therapy & Cancer Immunotherapy (CTCI) for  almost two and a half months.

Chronic renal disease, also known as chronic kidney disease, is a common condition of the worsening and loss of the kidney function. The kidney disease can be treated with a form of dialysis or by a kidney transplant. However, Israel’s groundbreaking methods in stem cell treatments of the disease may help Unakitan avoid a kidney transplant and cease dialysis treatments.

Turkish media reports indicate that Unakitan will visit Israel again for additional treatments in the future.

Israel’s highly advanced medical innovations and treatments have been utilized by patients across the Middle East. The Jewish state has opened its doors to patients of adversary countries, including Iraq and Iran. In 2008, Israel treated a 12-year-old boy from Iran suffering from a brain tumor.

In August 2012, the husband of Suhila Abd el Salam, the sister of Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, was admitted to Beilinson Hospital in Petach Tikva for immediate medical treatment following a serious heart condition. Haniyeh’s brother-in-law opted to come to Israel instead of Egypt for treatment and was transferred at the Gaza border by a Magen David Adom Ambulance.


###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 20th, 2013
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

photo by Teri Pengilley
Princess Basma Bint Saud Bin Abdul Azizat in her London home in Acton, a suburb of West London as she looks when visiting Saudi Arabia.

Her Royal Highness Princess Basma Bint Saud Bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud (Al Saud meaning The House of Saud) is an in-house critic of the élite that runs Saudi Arabia.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was created in a struggle that stretched from 1902 when Al Saud conquered Riyadh – till 1932 when they finally replaced the Hashemites that have been installed with British help. The importance of the Kingdom grew immensely  when President Roosevelt was told by Texas oilmen that Saudi oil is needed for the American post-war economy, and in 1945, on his way back from Yalta, Roosevelt met King Ibn Saud on the cruiser Quincy, in the Great Bitter Lake part of the Suez Canal,  to seal an oil for security agreement.

The oil country is an absolute monarchy, and the land is viewed as the property of the the House of Saud.

The oil state boasts now a 15,000-strong royal family, but it is rare for a voice from within its ranks to become part of the growing clamor for reform in the desert kingdom.

As the youngest daughter of the country’s second king, Saud the son of Abdul Aziz, and thus only a member of the third generation to the Kingdom since it was established, and niece to its current ruler Abdullah, she is from the highest echelons of the Saudi monarchy. Just as her privileged status gives her considerable authority in the debate about change, so this carefully dissenting royal has much to lose if her actions incur the displeasure of Saudi Arabia’s ultra-conservative regime.

But then Basma Bint Saud is no ordinary Saudi princess. A 48-year-old divorcee and a successful businesswoman, owning among other enterprises a restaurant in Jeddah and five additional lines of restaurants in progress, she has spent the last five years in the country building as well a career as a journalist and a blogger, confronting head on sensitive subjects from the abuse of women and poverty in the world’s second biggest oil exporter, to the chilling effect of the mutawa, the kingdom’s draconian religious police. Her website is www.basmahbintsaud.com

Her success at shining light on problems in Saudi society (a Facebook fan page has 25,000 followers), led her to conducting her campaign not from her birthplace in the capital, Riyadh, or her previous home in Jeddah, but from a recently-acquired house in the west London suburb of Acton which she shares with three of her five children.

The princess underlines that she was not forced to leave Saudi Arabia and goes out of her way to emphasise that her criticisms do not relate to her octogenarian uncle, King Abdullah, or the other senior members of the monarchy. Instead, the focus of her anger are governors, administrators, and plutocrats, who run the country day to day.

Amnesty International, January 2012, accused the Saudi authorities of conducting a campaign of repression against protesters and reformists following the revolutions that swept the Arab world, during which Riyadh sent troops into neighbouring Bahrain, so calls for greater political freedom from Shi’ites were stamped out. The impression of increased authoritarianism was not allayed by detention in October of three young Saudi film makers who posted on the internet a documentary about poverty in Riyadh.

Princess Basma insists she is no “rebel,” nor an advocate of regime change. She says – “The problems are because of the ruling ministers. We have ministers who are incapable of doing what has been ordered from above – because there is no follow up – because there are no consequences.
If you are poor man and you steal, your hand is cut off after three offenses. But if you are a rich man, nobody will say anything to you.”

“We have 15,000 royals, she said, and around 13,000 don’t enjoy the wealth. You have 2,000 who are multi-millionaires, who have all the power, all the wealth and no-one can even utter a word against it because they are afraid to lose what they have.”

Speaking fluently with a neutral English accent picked up as a teenager in the UK – Basma admits she is the product of a not only a privileged upbringing, but on top of this an atypical one, for a Saudi princess.

She is the 115th – and last – child of King Saud, the eldest surviving son of Saudi Arabia’s founding monarch Abdul Aziz.

King Saud was overthrown in 1964 by his brother, Faisal, and left for exile in Europe. Basma’s mother, a Syrian-born woman who was chosen for her future husband when she visited Mecca on the haj at the age of 10, took her children to the Middle East’s then most cosmopolitan city, the Lebanese capital of Beirut, where the young princess was schooled by French nuns among Christians, Jews and Muslims who did not adhere to the austere Wahhabi branch of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia.

When Lebanon’s civil war broke out in 1975, the family fled for Britain, where she attended a Hertfordshire girls’ school, and an international college in Oxford, before spending two years studying in Switzerland. It was a very different existence from the closeted upbringing normally led by young Saudi royal girls.

She explained how, at the age of 17, she joined one of the first visits to post-Mao China by foreign students, describing vividly how her group were taken to a farm and treated to a delicacy in the form of the brains of a live monkey chained and slaughtered at the table. She said: “Some girls screamed and fainted. Others were sick. I went to the car and refused to go back into the building. China was like visiting the moon.”

Equally alien was the land of her birth when she returned in early 1980s. Upon entering the royal court (“I was very careful, very nervous to behave correctly”), she found a cut-off society which, paradoxically, was more relaxed than present-day Saudi Arabia.

She said: “If China was like the moon, then arriving in Saudi Arabia was Mars. At least you can see the moon from Earth. It was a completely secluded society, but I wouldn’t say backward – not as backward as it is now. It was much more open and tolerant. You wouldn’t hear people saying ‘go to prayer’, ‘go and do this and that’.

“This is the atmosphere you have now. It is such a non-tolerant atmosphere, even of other sects. Any other sect that doesn’t actually belong to our community is thought to be – I’m not going to be sharp but very specific – not the true Islam.”

It is an intolerance which she claims pervades Saudi society, fromented by the mutawa, otherwise known as the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vices, ironically founded by her father to act as a check on traders charging inflated prices.

“Our religious police has the most dangerous effect on society, she said – the segregation of genders, putting the wrong ideas in the heads of men and women, producing psychological diseases that never existed in our country before, like fanatacism. The mutawa are everywhere, trying to lead society to a very virtuous life that doesn’t exist. Everthing is now behind closed doors.”

Amid regular accounts of executions  – Amnesty International last week described as “truly appalling” the death penalty carried out on a Saudi woman for “sorcery and witchcraft – Basma makes the point that human rights abuses happen to both genders but fall disproportionately on women.

As a result, she is slightly bewildered by the focus on the continuing prohibition on Saudi women, who cannot go to university or take a job without a male guardian’s permission, to being allowed to drive.

“Why don’t we actually fight for a woman’s right even to complain about being beaten up. That is more important than driving.
If a woman is beaten, they are told to go back to their homes – their fathers, husbands, brothers – to be beaten up again and locked up in the house.
No law, no police will protect them.

“We are overlooking essential rights of a human being – the right to mix between the sexes, to talk and study freely… We have got human rights but they are paralyzed. They are completely abstract, for the media and the western world.”

The princess, who divorced from her Saudi husband six years ago and went into business setting up a series of restaurant chains in Jeddah, which she wants to expand into Britain, has not been afraid to air such views in Saudi Arabia, writing in newspapers and websites on issues from the mutawa, to women’s prisons and clothing.

She eschews what she describes as the expected “sleep by day, live at night” leisured life of Saudi princesses and rather preoccupies herself with setting up a charity to fight poverty in the Arab world by offering a Fair Trade-type deal to artisans which will include access to education and health care.

But in a country where doctrine and adherence to orthodoxy can be everything, Princess Basma is aware of the hostility generated by a woman speaking out. She has studied Islam in depth, becoming a scholar of the faith’s great texts to give her the authority to challenge the teachings of Saudi imams. Armed with the evidence of scripture, she has rebuked the authorities in writing on issues from driving to the doctrinal basis for the requirement that women cover up in public.

But the eruption of democracy movements in Tunisia, Egypt and Syria has brought an abrupt end to her reporting from Saudi Arabia. This summer, officials began to suggest she “edit” her work. She said: “The first time they took out some sentences. The second time, paragraphs. The last time, they told me to change the whole article or the editor who published it would go to prison. I didn’t want to send anyone to prison on my behalf.”

Even though she insists her work was carried out until recently with the blessing of King Abdullah, here is a princess treading a narrow line.

Following the death in October of Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdel Aziz, the 86-year-old heir to the throne, Saudi Arabia is still ruled by the ageing and conservative generation of her uncles, who she says have given her “very strong hints” that her criticisms are not currently being met with approval.

Sitting close to a photomontage of the Saud dynasty which shows her father as a young man next to her grandfather and beside the boy Prince Nayef, the 78-year-old head of the interior ministry, who is de facto ruler, Basma underlines her respect for her father’s ruling brothers.

She said: “I am still an obedient citizen and I will always be behind the royal family. But I will never be quiet about what is happening on the ground. The unfairness of the distribution of wealth, about the power that has been unevenly given to people because they have complete obedience to those above them.

“I owe my uncles everything and what I owe them most is to tell them the truth. My mistake, my ruin is going to be insisting on telling the truth even if they don’t like it. Because I think they need to hear it, especially from one of their loyal, royal own.”

As for now, having started in Jeddah a Restaurant business, the princess has now in the works six different lines of restaurants in the West. This in itself being an amazing feat for a Saudi woman who at home in Saudi Arabia would not have been expected to act on her own, literally, on anything. But this is only the beginning.

Her Royal Highness is involved in a Western style preoccupation with philanthropies. In her interest in the fate of women and the upbringing of their children, she is involved in projects that help women develop an economic base for their well-being. She has the correct instinct that you do not give a fish to a hungry person – but you ought to teach him or her to fish in order to have an independent life. As such she is involved in development projects in Africa and is all ears about opportunities all over the globe – be it even here in the United States. Important that success stories get known, and that some of these activities reach her own home country and the Middle East in general. She looks at the refugee camps and wants to see there positive developments to replace the money waste that did not lead to results. She wants to explain to her own family at large the importance of empowering Saudi women in order to improve the lot of all Saudis – this in order to create a State that is not just dependent on one commodity – oil. At Gloria’s home here in Manhattan, she was listening to other women involved in this sort of philanthropy, or in outright business, and in many cases expressed interest to follow up with them.

————

Based on a January 3, 2012 article by Cahal Milmo of the Guardian and on my having had the honor to meet the Royal Highness in New York, February 18, 2013 at the home of Society and Diplomatic Review Publisher Ms. Gloria Starr Kins.

The initial article by Cahal Milmo was “Royal runs campaign for change in her homeland from a suburb in west London” and was published by the Guardian of the UK.

——————————————————————–

please see also the excellent video interview article of July 4, 2011 posted by MEMRI (Arabic spoken with English written  translation):

MEMRI: Saudi Columnist Princess Basma bint Saud bin Abd Al-Aziz

Video Clip

www.memritv.org/clip/en/3014.htmJul 4, 2011
#3014 – Saudi Columnist Princess Basma bint Saud bin Abd Al-Aziz Aal Saud Describes the


———————————————————————-

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 8th, 2013
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Any normalization of relations in the Middle East will have to include in its first batch of proposals the Cancellation of the Boycott.
Thus it is important to see what this Boycott entails today. The CRS has just fulfilled an important mission by releasing the following report.

Arab League Boycott of Israel
Congressional Research Service


Summary
The Arab League, an umbrella organization comprising 22 Middle Eastern and African countries
and entities, has maintained an official boycott of Israeli companies and Israeli-made goods since
the founding of Israel in 1948. The boycott is administered by the Damascus-based Central
Boycott Office, a specialized bureau of the Arab League.

The boycott has three tiers. The primary boycott prohibits citizens of an Arab League member
from buying from, selling to, or entering into a business contract with either the Israeli
government or an Israeli citizen. The secondary boycott extends the primary boycott to any entity
world-wide that does business in Israel. A blacklist of global firms that engage in business with
Israel is maintained by the Central Boycott Office, and disseminated to Arab League members.
The tertiary boycott prohibits an Arab League member and its nationals from doing business with
a company that deals with companies that have been blacklisted by the Arab League.

The U.S. government has often been at the forefront of international efforts to end the boycott and
its enforcement. Despite U.S. efforts, however, many Arab League countries continue to support
the boycott’s enforcement. U.S. legislative action related to the boycott dates from 1959 and
includes multiple statutory provisions expressing U.S. opposition to the boycott, usually in
foreign assistance legislation. In 1977, Congress passed laws making it illegal for U.S. companies
to cooperate with the boycott and authorizing the imposition of civil and criminal penalties
against U.S. violators. U.S. companies are required to report to the Department of Commerce any
requests to comply with the Arab League Boycott.

This report provides background information on the boycott and U.S. efforts to end its
enforcement.

More information on Israel is contained in CRS Report RL33476, Israel:
Background and U.S. Relations, by Jim Zanotti.

——————————-

CSR Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Arab League Boycott of Israel
Martin A. Weiss
Specialist in International Trade and Finance

January 17, 2013
Congressional Research Service

7-5700
 www.bis.doc.gov/complianceandenfo….

————————————-

Current Status of the Boycott
The boycott has three tiers. The primary boycott prohibits citizens of an Arab League member
from buying from, selling to, or entering into a business contract with either the Israeli
government or an Israeli citizen. The secondary boycott extends the primary boycott to any entity
world-wide that does business with Israel. A blacklist of global firms that engage in business with
Israel is maintained by the Central Boycott Office, and disseminated to Arab League members.
The tertiary boycott prohibits an Arab League member and its nationals from doing business with
a company that in turn deals with companies that have been blacklisted by the Arab League. The
boycott also applies to companies that the Arab League identifies as having “Zionist
sympathizers” in executive positions or on the board of the company. According to one analyst,
the “nature and detail of these rules reflect the boycotting countries’ tolerance for only the most
minimal contacts with Israel.”5
The Arab League does not enforce the boycott and boycott regulations are not binding on member
states. However, the regulations have been the model for various laws implemented by member
countries. The League recommends that member countries demand certificates of origin on all
goods acquired from suppliers to ensure that such goods meet all aspects of the boycott.
Overall enforcement of the boycott by member countries appears sporadic. Some Arab League
members have limited trading relations with Israel. The Arab League does not formally or
publicly state which countries enforce the boycott and which do not. Some Arab League member
governments have maintained that only the Arab League, as the formal body enforcing the
boycott, can revoke the boycott. However, adherence to the boycott is an individual matter for
each Arab League member and enforcement varies by state.
There are indications that some Arab League countries publicly support the boycott while
continuing to quietly trade with Israel. According to Doron Peskin, head of research at InfoProd, a
consulting firm for foreign and Israeli companies specializing in trade with Arab states, “the Arab
boycott is now just lip service.”6 This sentiment has been echoed by Arab officials, albeit
anonymously. One official commented to the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram that, “boycotting
Israel is something that we talk about and include in our official documents but it is not
something that we actually carry out—at least not in most Arab states.”7
Others assert that enforcement of the boycott waxes and wanes with the level of intensity of the
Israeli-Palestinian issue. However, the Arab League has acknowledged that U.S. pressure has
affected its ability to maintain the boycott. At the May 2006 Arab League conference on the
boycott, one conference participant reportedly said, “The majority of Arab countries are evading
the boycott, notably the Gulf states and especially Saudi Arabia.”8 He added that a major reason

5 Howard N. Fenton III, “United States Antiboycott Laws: An Assessment of Their Impact Ten Years after Adoption,”
Hastings International & Comparative Law Review, Vol. 10 , 1987, cited in Eugene Kontorovich, “The Arab League
Boycott and WTO Accession: Can Foreign Policy Excuse Discriminatory Sanctions,” Chicago Journal of International
Law, Vol. 4 No. 2, Fall 2003.
6 Orly Halpern, “Arab Boycott Largely Reduced to ‘Lip Service,’” Jerusalem Post, February 28, 2006.
7 Dina Ezzat, “Boycott Israel? Not so simple,” Al-Ahram Weekly Online, April 11-17, 2002.
8 “Arabs evading economic boycott of Israel,” United Press International, May 16, 2006.


Arab League Boycott of Israel Congressional Research Service 3
for these countries bypassing the boycott is “growing U.S. pressures in the direction of
normalization with the Jewish state.”9
Some states and entities have formally ended the boycott, or at least some aspects of it. Egypt
(1979), the Palestinian Authority (1993), and Jordan (1994) signed peace treaties or agreements
that ended the boycott.10 Mauritania, which never applied the boycott, established diplomatic
relations with Israel in 1999. Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia do not enforce the boycott.11 In 1994,
the member countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)—Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar,
Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates—announced that they would only enforce the
primary boycott. In 1996, the GCC states recognized that total elimination of the boycott is a
necessary step for peace and economic development in the region. However, U.S. companies
continue to receive requests to cooperate with the boycott from GCC member countries. Lebanon
enforces the primary, secondary, and tertiary boycotts.12
Impact of the Boycott
Since the boycott is sporadically applied and ambiguously enforced, its impact, measured by
capital or revenue denied to Israel by companies adhering to the boycott, is difficult to measure.
The effect of the primary boycott appears limited since intra-regional trade and investment are
small. Nonetheless, there is some limited trade between Israel and its Arab neighbors. In 2004,
according to the Manufacturers Association of Israel (IMA), Israeli exports to Arab countries and
entities (mainly Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority) totaled $192 million.13
Enforcement of the secondary and tertiary boycotts has decreased over time, reducing their effect.
A 1996 study by researchers at Tel Aviv University looked at the effect of the Arab boycott on the
Israeli economy through the automobile market. Following a relaxation of boycott enforcement in
the late 1980s through the early 1990s, Asian countries began exporting cars to Israel. The study
found that if the boycott had continued to be enforced, and these cars did not enter the Israeli
market, the Israeli car market would have been 12% smaller—leading to a $790 price increase per
car. Total welfare loss for the study year, 1994, would have been an estimated $89 million.14
Thus, it appears that since intra-regional trade is small, and that the secondary and tertiary
boycotts are not aggressively enforced, the boycott may not currently have an extensive effect on
the Israeli economy.

9 Ibid.
10 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, March 26, 1979, Article III, paragraph 3; Treaty of Peace between the State of Israel
and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, October 26, 1994, Article 7, Section 2, paragraph A; Declaration of Principles,
September 10, 1993.
11 2007 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, United States Trade Representative, March 30,
2007.
12 Ibid.
13 “Exports from Israel Up, Up, Up!,” Bridges for Peace, June 27, 2005. U.S. efforts to increase trade in the region
include the Qualified Industrial Zone (QIZ) program, which allows goods jointly produced by Israel and either Jordan
or Egypt to enter the United States duty free. See CRS Report RS22002, Qualifying Industrial Zones in
Jordan and Egypt, by Mary Jane Bolle, Jeremy M. Sharp, and Alfred B. Prados.
14 Chaim Fershtman and Neil Gandal, “The Effect of the Arab Boycott on Israel: The Automobile Market,” Tel Aviv
University, January 1996.


Arab League Boycott of Israel Congressional Research Service 4
Despite the lack of economic impact on either Israeli or Arab economies, the boycott remains of
strong symbolic importance to all parties. Many Arab countries want to deny normalization with
Israel until there is a final resolution to the conflict in the Palestinian territories. Israel, on the
other hand, asserts that it wants to be accepted in the neighborhood both in political terms and as
a source of, and target for, foreign investment.15


U.S. Activity to End the Arab League Boycott of Israel
The U.S. government officially opposes the boycott and works to end its enforcement on multiple
levels. For many years, language has been included in successive foreign operations
appropriations legislation concerning the boycott. For example, Section 7035 of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, FY2012 (P.L. 112-74) states that it is the sense of Congress that
1. the Arab League boycott of Israel, and the secondary boycott of American firms
that have commercial ties with Israel, is an impediment to peace in the region and
to United States investment and trade in the Middle East and North Africa;
2. the Arab League boycott, which was regrettably reinstated in 1997, should be
immediately and publicly terminated, and the Central Office for the Boycott of
Israel immediately disbanded;
3. all Arab League states should normalize relations with their neighbor Israel;
4. the President and the Secretary of State should continue to vigorously oppose the
Arab League boycott of Israel and find concrete steps to demonstrate that
opposition by, for example, taking into consideration the participation of any
recipient country in the boycott when determining to sell weapons to said
country; and
5. the President should report to Congress annually on specific steps being taken by
the United States to encourage Arab League states to normalize their relations
with Israel to bring about the termination of the Arab League boycott of Israel,
including those to encourage allies and trading partners of the United States to
enact laws prohibiting businesses from complying with the boycott and
penalizing businesses that do comply.
U.S. Antiboycott Compliance Legislation
The United States passed antiboycott legislation in the late 1970s to discourage U.S. individuals
from cooperating with the secondary and tertiary boycotts. Antiboycott laws apply to “U.S.
exports and imports, financing, forwarding and shipping, and certain other transactions that may
take place wholly offshore.”16

15 Anju S. Bawa, “Israel Embarks on PR Face-lift,” The Washington Times, December 5, 2006.
16 Website of the Department of Commerce’s Office of Antiboycott Compliance. www.bis.doc.gov/
AntiboycottCompliance/oacrequirements.html#whatscovered.


Arab League Boycott of Israel Congressional Research Service 5
Although U.S. legislation and practices were designed to counteract the Arab League boycott of
Israel, in practice, they apply to all non-sanctioned boycotts. According to the Department of
Commerce’s Office of Antiboycott Compliance, the legislation was enacted to “encourage, and in
specified cases, require U.S. firms to refuse to participate in foreign boycotts that the United
States does not sanction. They [the legislation] have the effect of preventing U.S. firms from
being used to implement foreign policies of other nations which run counter to U.S. policy.”17
U.S. regulations define cooperating with the boycott as (1) agreeing to refuse or actually refusing
to do business in Israel or with a blacklisted company; (2) agreeing to discriminate or actually
discriminating against other persons based on race, religion, sex, national origin, or nationality;
(3) agreeing to furnish or actually furnishing information about business relationships in Israel or
with blacklisted companies; and (4) agreeing to furnish or actually furnishing information about
the race, religion, sex, or national origin of another person.
U.S. antiboycott laws are included in the Export Administration Act of 1979 (EAA) and the
Ribicoff Amendment to the Tax Reform Act of 1976 (TRA).18 The export-related antiboycott
provisions are administered by the Department of Commerce and prohibit U.S. persons from
participating in the boycott. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) administers tax-related
antiboycott regulations that deny tax benefits to U.S. taxpayers that participate in the boycott.
Export-Related Antiboycott Legislation
Regulations promulgated under Section 8 of the EAA prohibit any U.S. person or company from
complying with an unsanctioned foreign boycott and require them to report requests they have
received to comply with a boycott. Such requests must be reported quarterly to the Department of
Commerce’s Office of Antiboycott Compliance (OAC) in the Bureau of Industry and Security
(BIS). These regulations are implemented in part 760 of the Department of Commerce’s Export
Administration Regulations (EAR).
The EAA prescribes penalties that may be imposed for violation of the antiboycott regulations.
Civil penalties for violating the antiboycott provisions are a maximum fine of $50,000 per
violation and a potential loss of export privileges for a period of time. Particularly egregious cases
may be referred to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution. Criminal penalties imposed
for each violation can include a fine of up to $50,000 or five times the value of the exports
involved, whichever is greater, or imprisonment for up to five years, or both. Willful violations,
where the violator has knowledge that the items are also intended for any country to which
exports are restricted for national security or foreign policy purposes, are punishable by fines up
to $250,000 or imprisonment for up to 10 years.

17 Website of the Office of Antiboycott Compliance. www.bis.doc.gov/AntiboycottCompli…
oacrequirements.html
18 Section 8 of The Export Administration Act of 1979 (P.L. 96-72; 50 U.S.C. app. §2407) has expired but its
provisions are continued under the authorization granted to the President in the National Emergencies Act (NEA) (P.L.
94-412; 50 U.S.C. §1601-1651) and the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) (P.L. 95-223; 50
U.S.C. app. §2407), most recently under Executive Order 13222 signed August 17, 2001 (66 F.R. 44025, August 22,
2001). Antiboycott export regulations are at 15 C.F.R. 760.1 et seq. The Ribicoff Amendment to the Tax Reform Act of
1976 (P.L. 94-455) added Section 999 to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (26 U.S.C. §1 et seq). Tax
regulations are at 26 C.F.R. §7.999-1.


Arab League Boycott of Israel Congressional Research Service 6
In July 2007, BIS amended existing penalty guidelines to introduce a voluntary disclosure
program that could reduce a potential fine levied on an exporter if it voluntarily discloses its
violation of U.S. antiboycott laws. For the disclosure to have a mitigating effect, notification must
take place prior to BIS learning about the violation from other sources and commencing an
investigation. The new guidelines also created a new supplement no. 2 to the antiboycott
provisions that more clearly describes how BIS investigates violations of U.S. antiboycott laws
and determines penalty rates.
Tax-Related Antiboycott Legislation
The Ribicoff Amendment to the TRA added Section 999 to the Internal Revenue Code. This
section denies various tax benefits normally available to exporters if they participate in the
boycott. In addition, the IRS requires U.S. taxpayers to report operations in, with, or related to
countries that the Treasury Department includes on its annual list of countries that may require
participation in an international boycott, and with any other country from which they receive a
request to participate in a boycott.19
Denying tax benefits to U.S. firms that participate in the boycott appears to be an effective
antiboycott strategy. According to one study, U.S. legislation reduces overall participation in the
boycott by U.S. taxpayers by between 15% and 30%.20 However, the effectiveness of U.S.
antiboycott tax legislation may diminish since the U.S. government is reducing export tax
benefits that are available to U.S.-based companies to comply with World Trade Organization
(WTO) rulings.21

———————————–
Author Contact Information
Martin A. Weiss
Specialist in International Trade and Finance
 mweiss at crs.loc.gov, 7-5407

———————————-

19 The current list of countries that request U.S. companies to participate or agree to participate in boycotts prohibited
under U.S. law includes Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.

“List of the Countries Requiring Cooperation with an International Boycott, Department of the Treasury,” Department
of the Treasury, 77 F.R. 160, August 17, 2012.
20 James R. Hines, Jr., “Taxed Avoidance: American Participation in Unsanctioned International Boycotts,” NBER
Working Paper 6116, July 1997.
21 See CRS Report RS20746, Export Tax Benefits and the WTO: The Extraterritorial Income Exclusion and Foreign
Sales Corporations, by David L. Brumbaugh.


###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 8th, 2013
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Our Editorial:

The US Ambassador in Tel-Aviv, Mr. Dan Shapiro, and Secretary of State John Kerry are preparing the visit of President Obama and expect the evolution of realism on the part of the new Israeli Government.

Realism starts with the understanding that Mr. Obama has won the elections in the United States despite attempted interference from Republican factors that tried to use Israel as part of their internal-American warfare. The same factors also ended up weakening Mr. Netanyahu. He has now to decide between being in a minority in his own government, or accept the reality of a coalition that takes as well into account the political interests of Mr. Obama. These are the re-creation of a united Israel that recognizes the needs of a National State, and its attempt at a compromise with a moderate Palestine. America is stronger now in the region then ever before, because it becomes less dependent on Arab oil, and this will have effect in Ryad and in the Gulf States that ought to be expected to lower the opposition they had before to a settlement with Israel.

The bottom line of the above is that President Obama becomes king-maker in Israel, while Netanyahu has lost in his attempt of being King-maker in the United States.

Mr. Obama will have many subjects in his attache case in this trip to the Middle East. The US and Israel have to focus on topics like Iran, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, the political effects and the environment effects of the global dependence on oil, joint efforts to institute new and renewable sources of energy, the future of multilateralism and the UN, the evolution of politics in the Arab World – will there be a spring or a return to the Middle Ages – is above dilemma also in the cards of the politics in Israel and the US as well? Secretary Kerry on his trip will limit the list of topics and the new Netanyahu Government that is established in Israel will have to fit the short list that evolves. Everything is in the timing!

————————

Ahead of US President Barack Obama’s arrival to Tel-Aviv  on March 20th, confidantes of Netanyahu in the Prime Minister’s Office told the  Maariv paper that their boss “would be willing to make compromises in the negotiations with the Palestinians, but it would depend on the price Israel would have to pay.” Moreover, “Netanyahu understands that things need to advance, he is committed to that, and he is able to show progress,” one said. Next week, Netanyahu’s special envoy, Yitzhak Molcho, travels to the US to discuss ways of renewing the negotiations with the Palestinians. But The Haaretz reports that Netanyahu aides deny the Prime Minister is considering a settlement freeze, which is a basic condition of the Palestinians to restart negotiations.

We find of interest the March 20 date which coincidentally is the day ahead of the Equinox of Spring or the Iranian New Year – which this year is also a stage in the election of a new President in Iran. This gives the date the potential for an interesting surprise relating to Iran.

Israel Hayom, owned by American Republican casino-magnate Sheldon Adelson, writes that the right-wing are concerned that Netanyahu will agree to a settlement freeze and that the Prime Minister’s Office is not willing to comment on the issue. The Yesha Settler Council wants to meet with Obama in order to share the settlers’ perspective directly with him, Maariv reported. One can expect that he will agree to meet with them as he will meet with the Abbas leadership as well.

Two Netanyahu associates gave Yedioth’s esteemed political affairs commentator, Nahum Barnea, completely contradictory predictions about Netanyahu’s future acts. One said that Netanyahu will go far to appease Obama and the European Union on the Palestinian issue. The other, who has completely opposite political views, said Netanyahu’s big act this year will be war against Iran’s nuclear project.

A Palestinian official told Israel Army Radio that if anyone can change Israel’s attitude, it’s Obama.

===================================================================================

A Blog of the Manhattan based Council on Foreign Relations just posted, in our opinion a mild and thus incomplete view of this early visit by the American President – the title is:

Obama’s Reset Opportunity With Israel.

by Robert M. Danin
February 6, 2013

The White House announced yesterday that Barack Obama will visit Israel in March, his first visit there as president. The decision reportedly follows a January 28 telephone conversation between the president, just starting his second term, and newly reelected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The visit is a welcome opportunity to reset the U.S.-Israel relationship for the next four years. It is significant that the visit was agreed to and announced even before Prime Minister Netanyahu had an opportunity to put together a new government and establish a new set of priorities and policies for the nineteenth Knesset. It suggests that the White House recognizes that with many Middle East policy challenges ahead on a vast array of regional issues—Iran, Syria, advancing Israeli-Palestinian peace—it is necessary to strengthen a core prerequisite—mutual trust—before the more intensive policy debate can proceed.

To be sure, it is imperative that the United States and Israel, as allies, define their shared objectives together. But Obama’s upcoming visit needs to be less policy and more fundamental—a reaffirmation of the United States’ core connection to Israel, its safety, and desire to help a secure Israel realize its long-term dream of a peace with its neighbors that anchors the country’s long-term security and future in the region.

The president will also visit Ramallah where he can reassure disenchanted Palestinians that the United States genuinely wants Palestine to emerge soon as an independent and democratic state living side by side with Israel in peace and security.  It is an opportunity for the United States to demonstrate that support for Israel and support for Palestine is not a zero-sum game. To the contrary, it must be win-win. Only a superpower that embraces both sides—and occasionally employs tough love in the advancement of larger shared objectives—can help the two sides achieve that which they cannot do alone. But this visit to both sides must be about the love.

Obama’s visit to Israel provides the president an opportunity not only to demonstrate that he wishes to establish a new and invigorated relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu, but to establish a relationship with an even more important partner: the Israeli and Palestinian people. Both sides suffer from a deep and well-earned pessimism about the possibilities about peace with the other.

If indeed the president still believes that peace is both possible and necessary, this is a golden opportunity for him to make the case directly to these two war-weary populations.  If comprehensive peace is no longer his immediate objective, given the Middle East’s challenges and upheaval, then it is still critical that the president offers an understanding of the regional dynamics and a commitment to stay engaged with his friends as they struggle in the face of a worrisome future. In short, the president must demonstrate that he gets it from the perspective of the people on the ground.

Just as some criticize the president for not visiting Israel during his first term, some will criticize Obama for going to Israel too early into his second term, before he has a clear set of policy choices he wishes Israelis, Palestinians, and others in the region to make. But this visit will be about something more basic: affirming genuine friendship, and establishing greater trust and a human connection. In doing so, he will demonstrate his commitment to remain engaged in the Middle East, not pivot away at the expense of a region where there is no such thing as benign neglect.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 4th, 2013
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Judgment of laziness misleading.

MENAFN – Arab News – 04/02/2013

www.menafn.com/menafn/1093605566/Judgment-of-laziness-misleading&src%3DNLEN

(MENAFN – Arab News) A NEW STUDY by the World Health Organization suggests that Saudis are lazy people. That sounds like a general statement unsuited to such an international body. How can a judgment of laziness be made on anything other than subjective and disparaging terms?

Yet looking closer at the study, it does seem that they have approached it with some sense of scientific propriety. Taking the measure not of an overall attitude or character flaw that we might refer to as laziness, but rather, a set of quantifiable indicators, such as absenteeism among employees. While we don’t rank the highest, we are pretty high on that list.

Should we be insulted? Perhaps. But the more interesting point to be made is the way in which this study suggests a cultural bias in seemingly innocent questions.
For example, business practices differ in different parts of the world, from a long and regimented workday in some countries, to a seemingly more leisurely pace in others.
The practice in some Mediterranean countries of taking a long break from work in the middle of the day, for example, might well be viewed as being ‘lazy’ by a German or American worker.

But that perception totally denies the cultural, social and personal utility of taking that long break.

Can the simple quantified data possibly take into account the amount of business, or preparation for business in the form of social networking, which takes place during those leisurely lunches? And for that matter, who is to say that time spent sitting at one’s desk at work is always productive time, and time away from the office always unproductive? With all the ready-made distractions that exist on any Internet-enabled computer or smart phone, the very opposite might be true.

Finally, what might show up as ‘laziness’ in a cross-cultural analysis may correspond in unexpected ways with issues of health. It is well known, that sufficient sleep is essential for health – but so is a schedule that allows for home-cooked food at regular intervals during the day. So, those highly driven business people who spend their break time at the gym and are statistically less lazy, may be setting themselves up for future illness or burnout. Therefore, any statistics regarding apparent laziness are very limited for multiple reasons.

There probably is no way to accurately and neutrally measure an individual’s lifelong contribution to society, because it would have to include paid and unpaid, formal and informal endeavors and allow for cultural and personal variation in activity patterns. And even if it could be done, what would really be the point of such a study?

I think that the label of laziness is completely misleading. The World Health Organization study may indeed offer some insights, but to use it to characterize a nation of people according to a subjective negative judgment is simply a waste of time. If we do have a rising rate of absenteeism among workers, that doesn’t point to laziness, but may indicate other issues relating to management style and job satisfaction. Let’s focus on that!


————————————————–

Also on MENAFN.com


(MENAFN – Arab News)    The Ministry of Interior has authorized traffic departments and field traffic policemen across the Kingdom to use force against severe traffic violators.

Brig. Hassan bin Saleh Al-Hassan, spokesman of the Riyadh Traffic Department, said that security and traffic agencies had noticed that violators would hide the number plates of their vehicles, or drive without any plates, a local newspaper reported. “Such acts are a threat to security and traffic in general,” said Al-Hassan. When drivers of such vehicles do not comply with orders to halt their cars, they tend to escape. This forces police field teams to pursue them and force them to stop.

The authorization included the use of civil cars (secret traffic teams), and more than one car during a pursuit process to ensure offenders and suspects would not get away.

Qualified officers and members of the police force will implement these pursuit operations for the safety of all parties concerned,” he said. Al-Hassan pointed out that directions were issued to choose a suitable spot for halting the vehicle, with the utmost precautionary measures to take full control of the situation on hands. “All these procedures and measures will be subject to the personal supervision and monitoring of heads of traffic departments,” he concluded.


Middle East – North Africa Financial News.

Saudi- Kingdom Holding and Google discuss tech links


Prince Alwaleed, Prince Khalid bin Alwaleed and Shadi Sanbar with Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google, at The Savoy hotel, London.


(MENAFN – Arab News) Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, chairman of Kingdom Holding Company (KHC), met with Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google, at The Savoy hotel, London.

Also, Prince Alwaleed and Google’s Schmidt held a lunch meeting in the presence of Prince Khalid bin Alwaleed and Shadi Sanbar, KHC’s executive director and CFO and member of the investment committee.

During their meeting, Prince Alwaleed and Schmidt discussed business and economic issues.

They also discussed Prince Alwaleed’s investments in the US in light of being the largest individual foreign investor there.

Future potential business cooperation between KHC and Google in the technology field was among issues discussed in the meeting.

Prince Alwaleed has significant investments in the US in the financial sector.

via Citigroup, in the media and entertainment sector through News Corporation, Time Warner and in the hotel sector through the Fairmont New York Plaza one of New York’s most distinctive landmarks, Four Seasons hotel via the management of Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts in which KHC hold a 47.5 percent interest, and in the social media and technology sector via Twitter.

Prince Alwaleed first invested in Citigroup in 1991, and is the largest single shareholder in the company.

In January 2008, Prince Alwaleed participated in a 12.5 billion private offering of convertible preferred securities of Citigroup.
The new direct investment was made alongside an exclusive group of leading international investors.

The prince converted the preferred shares in 2009 into common shares (voting shares).

Prince Alwaleed has 7 percent (voting shares) through KHC in News Corp. and KHC that is 95 percent owned by Prince Alwaleed, is the second largest shareholder in News Corp. after the Murdoch family.

The New York Plaza that is owned 50 percent by HRH through KHC underwent a 400 million renovation and reopened a few years ago.
The hotel is managed by Fairmont Raffles Hotels International (FRHI) in which KHC holds a substantial interest.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on December 27th, 2012
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

We found an old NYT editorial and wondered what happened to Mr. Fouad al-Farhan in the last four years – so we tried the internet.
We think this is import if we want an honest analysis of the pace of democratization in the Middle East of the kings of the sword.
Can the Arab world be re-energized peacefully, or change must first lead to chaos in the transition stage?
Does it help using western thinking
when arguing for an agreed upon transition?

The Stats say the website www.alfarhan.org is still in operation in 2012, and is served out of Brea, California.

—-

Editorial of The New York Times – January 4, 2008

Saudi Arabia’s Promised Reforms

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia did the right thing when he pardoned the “Qatif girl.” The perfect injustice of the case, in which a young woman was gang raped and then sentenced to 200 lashes for being alone in a car with a man to whom she was not married, left him no choice. Now another ugly face of Saudi justice has been revealed, one that cannot be explained by religion, ancient tradition or culture.

The detention last month of an outspoken blogger, Fouad al-Farhan — only confirmed by the Interior Ministry this week — is an act of thoroughly modern despotism and one the king should immediately overrule.

Mr. Farhan’s Web site, www.alfarhan.org, has posted a letter from him in which he said he was being investigated because of his writings about political prisoners. If King Abdullah is really serious about reforming his kingdom’s legal system, as he has indicated that he is, then he must change not only the Sharia-based courts but also the organs of state security that silence critics in his name.

King Abdullah’s announced reforms include the creation of a Supreme Court as well as specialized courts for criminal, commercial, labor and family matters, and the training of legal staff. These plans have been especially welcomed by foreigners doing business in Saudi Arabia, who have been hamstrung by the capriciousness of the religious judges.

The case of the woman from the Eastern town of Qatif should make clear to the king that his reforms cannot stop at making life easier for businessmen. They must also make life far better for women, who are denied basic legal and social rights, and they must give more legal protection to those who criticize the government.

Defenders of the existing Saudi system argue that change in this traditional society must come slowly. Many Saudis are clearly eager for more and faster change. A Gallup poll conducted last year showed that a majority want more freedoms for women. King Abdullah has demonstrated a laudable desire for reform. He must understand that cruelty, sex discrimination and censorship cannot be part of a modern legal system or a country that wants to participate in the modern world.

When President Bush visits Saudi Arabia this month, he should remind the king of that.

—-

In 2008, Fouad al-Farhan was held in solitary confinement for 90 days. In 2005 he was made to take off his blog which he later renewed at a new website.

—-

Readers’ Comments: “If you want democracy in the Middle East, then accept the results and do not start boycotting ‘democratically selected governments’, such as Hamas….”Ahmed Ba-Aboud, Saudi Arabia, Dhahran

—-

Fouad Al-Farhan
Name: Fouad Al-Farhan
Country: Saudi Arabia
Status: Free
Blog:  

www.alfarhan.org

Domain Owner: Fouad Alfarhan
Email:    alfarhanf at gmail.com

Today has been arrested the most popular blogger in Saudi Arabia. Even if his blog was not 100% political, the Saudi authorities considered that the ideas that appeared in the blog could not be allowed. The main reason why this blogger has been arrested is because of some articles, trying to defend the political prisoners in this country, where having own ideas, different from the regime’s ones, is might ends up in prison. This is not the first case of bloggers in Saudi Arabia that have problems with the authorities because of posts in their blogs expressing irreverent ideas, according to their point of view. Unfortunately in countries like Iran exists lots of similar cases.

One of the most popular cases that the bloggers have as a reference of fight for freedom is Akbar Ganji, a journalist that just with the ideas and not with the guns, fought for human rights in his country. Nowadays, he is spending his 7th year of imprisonment, but anyway, in the Iranian blogosphere, his name is still present, and in lots of blogs appears some reference to his case. Ganji criticized the political panorama, underlined the main problems and was absolutely inflexible, when it was about human rights, and specially, civil rights.

Today someone like me, who has a blog, or like you, who might have another one, could be in prison in Saudi Arabia, where civil rights have no place or where conditions that people suffer in prison are terrifying. Today we could all be Mr. Al Farhan, or Mr. Ganji.
Knowledge should have no limits, freedom of speech neither.

—-

Fouad al-Farhan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Fouad al-Farhan
Born 1975
Taif, Saudi Arabia
Nationality Saudi
Religion Islam
Children 2[1]

Fouad Ahmad Alfarhan is a popular Saudi Arabian blogger and political commentator noted for his advocacy of political reforms on his blog.[2][3] Farhan is unusual among Saudi Arabian bloggers because he uses his real name rather than blogging under a pseudonym.[4] Farhan had stopped blogging for a period after being told by government officials to “tone down” his commentary.[5] He resumed posting in July 2007. On Tuesday, December 10, 2007 Farhan was arrested in Jeddah. The arrest was reported by other Arab bloggers, and Saudi authorities confirmed he was being held for “interrogation.”[5][6] No official charges were relayed. He was held in solitary confinement without charges.[7] He was released from prison on April 26, 2008.[8][9]

Reacting to his arrest, friends created the website Free Fouad calling for his release.[10] Gamal Eid, the executive director of the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, commented “When the Saudi authorities arrest a young man writing maturely and is against terrorism and calls for reformation, it is a serious indicator for how far are the fanatic and those opposing freedom of expression and reformation are taking over in Saudi Arabia.”[11]

Prior to his arrest Farhan worked as a manager at Smart Info Co. in Jeddah. He holds an M.A. degree in IT from Ball State University in Muncie, IN. He is married and has two children, Raghad and Khetab. Although Fouad Al-Farhan believes future is for the blogs, he does not know how does this future would look like. But we can only be optimistic. “If we worked hard to spread blogging in Saudi Arabia, and convinced some influential people to adopt it, then we will gain the benefits of blogging in the same way Western societies did” he says, “we have to move on.” [12]

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ Fouad al-Farhan (12 May 2010).   www.alfarhan.ws/?page_id=2. Retrieved 28 August 2011.
  2. ^ ???? ???? ???????
  3. ^ “World & Nation Update: Abroad”Newsday.com. 1 January 2008. www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-world015521985jan01,0,2085720.story. Retrieved 2 January 2008.
  4. ^ “Blogger Detained in Saudi Arabia”. Associated Press. January 2, 2008. ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iNxQ0lEbE_npD19D_YeUP9RsOwuAD8TTCMS80. Retrieved 2008-01-02.
  5. ^ a b “Dissident Saudi Blogger Is Arrested Popular Internet Commentator Had Called for Political Reform”. The Washington Post Company. January 1, 2008. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/31/AR2007123101915.html. Retrieved 2008-01-02.
  6. ^ Zoepf, Katherine (January 2, 2008). “Saudis Confirm Detention of Blogger”. The New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/world/middleeast/02saudi.html?ei=5065&en=bf9af2ff6de9aeb0&ex=1199854800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print. Retrieved 2008-01-02.
  7. ^ “No freedom for ‘dean of Saudi bloggers’”, by Nic Robertson and Wayne Drash, February 27, 2008, CNN
  8. ^ “Saudi blogger freed from jail, colleague says”, April 26, 2008, CNN
  9. ^ “Saudi official: Why popular blogger Farhan was jailed”, by Caryle Murphy, Christian Science Monitor, April 28, 2008
  10. ^ Free Fouad
  11. ^ The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information
  12. ^ Katagogi – Fouad Al Farhan
—————————————————–
Persondata
Name Fouad Al-Farhan
Date of birth 1975
Place of birth Taif, Saudi Arabia
Stub icon This Saudi Arabia biographical article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on December 25th, 2012
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

The three sections below are from the Begin – Sadat Center for Strategic Studies (BESA) at the Bar Ilan University in Israel Russia’s Declining Influence in the Middle East” by Dr. Anna Geifman, a senior research fellow in the Department of Political Studies at Bar-Ilan University and Professor Emerita at Boston University, and Yuri Teper, a PhD candidate in political studies at Bar-Ilan University.

We find the material lacking as it looks only at Russia in the Middle East and omits looking at the “Middle East in Russia.”

What I mean is the conflicts within Russia stoked by Islamism among the Islamic citizens of Russia which are being kept by force in the Federation but would rather like to be free. It is in religion that they find the only possible outlet and their predisposition to the post Arab Spring Islamization of the Arab Street creates an internal danger in the Russian Federation.

The friendship for Assad’s Syria made sense, like it did for Saddam’s Iraq – that because they were secular leaders with whom they could deal and help stoke doses of anti-Americanism. But the moment the stage moves on to a mix of social and religious leadership this might get trickier.

Further, Putin is not Stalin even though he might like to fit on shoes of a dictator, he is basically a Capitalist and not a Bolshevic. What I mean is what I learned this last Sunday by watching Fareed Zakaria’s CNN/GPS program where he found that Egypt today might be in a stage of de-learning democracy before it had any, rather then of establishing democracy. The example of the way the Bolshevics stopped the evolution of democracy in the Soviet Union is  what evolves now in Egypt where Islamism is using methods that were perfected by Communism in order to manage the people away from a really free future. The West is not going to like this and Putin will find it difficult to side with this while keeping an eye on his own backyard as well.

The Israelis’ analysis looks at the region from the angle of their clash with Hamas, but the world at large has other angles and reasons in its viewing the changing Middle East. The world at large loved the potentates as long as they delivered the oil at low price. The Russians like to see this disturbed, and hike the price of oil by disrupting the security of supply from Arab and Iranian sources. For them destabilizing the Gulf would be just dandy, and much more interesting then playing the Hamas card. Stoking religion or secularism in Saudi Arabia would lead to similar results externally, but have different effects internally in Russia. I believe that Lavrov has more to balance in his mind then the fate of Hamas.

============

The BESA article suggests:

Syria has long been Russia’s closest ally in the Middle East, practically the only one since the end of the Cold War. Lacking the resources to make an impact elsewhere, Russia has maintained a close, though largely one-sided, relationship with Syria, based primarily on supplying Damascus with weapons. Syria paid back with promises of future economic preferences and provided the Russian navy with a maritime supplies base in Tartus, on the Mediterranean coast. It also fed Russian hunger for a great-power status, contributing to the illusion of Moscow’s regional influence.

Despite the central role that Syria played in Russia’s foreign policy, Putin’s efforts during the ongoing civil war in Syria have mostly been confined to diplomacy. Moscow provides President Bashar Assad’s regime with a diplomatic umbrella in the UN, protecting it from harsh resolutions and preventing a possible international intervention. However, it significantly lags behind Iran in helping the Syrian government suppress the uprising. Russia vocally protested against international involvement in the conflict, but has been unable to counter the assistance streaming to the rebels. At the same time, Moscow’s stubborn diplomatic support for the Syrian regime has taken a heavy toll on its relations with the rest of the Arab world.

Moreover, Moscow has apparently been unwilling to endanger its vital economic interests for a flimsy chance to influence the situation in the Middle East. Thus, despite opposing views on Syria, Russia and Turkey achieved a significant breakthrough on the construction of the South Stream gas pipeline to Europe. While Turkey is the second-largest consumer of Russian gas, after Germany, Russia is the weaker side in the relationship, dependent on Ankara’s permission to run the pipeline across its territory.

——

Russia’s relationship with Hamas began in 2006, after the organization won the Palestinian elections, and strengthened in 2007, when Hamas took control of the Gaza strip. Russia is among the few great powers that maintain official relations with Hamas and do not recognize it as a terrorist organization. In 2006, a Hamas delegation paid an official visit to Moscow and was received by Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, thus gaining valuable international recognition. Since then, Lavrov has met regularly with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal, who went to Moscow in 2010. Russian officials have justified their country’s position; they claim that having connections on both sides of the conflict will allow negotiation and constructive dialogue towards a resolution. They had previously applied the same approach in the Korean conflict, presumably aiming to maintain Russia’s international significance far beyond the country’s actual capacity to have an effect.

In practice, when the opportunity to make an impact presented itself during the last Israel-Hamas standoff, Russia stayed out of the way, confining itself to firm anti-Israeli rhetoric and empty calls for restraint on both sides. Speaking at a news conference after a meeting with Arab foreign ministers in Riyadh, Lavrov described Israeli actions as “disproportionate” and “entirely unacceptable,” while Putin called on the parties to exercise restraint. At the same time, Russia Today, Moscow’s official international satellite network broadcasting in English and Arabic, persistently aired vicious anti-Israeli propaganda, bordering on incitement.

These statements apparently reflect Russia’s desperate effort to mend its shattered image in the Arab world caused by its support of the Assad regime. Still, it was the US-backed Egypt which played the central role in achieving the ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel, reaping the benefits of international prestige. Russia did not have any role whatsoever, and during the whole crisis remained entirely irrelevant.

——

Their Conclusion is thus: The oil issue is almost automatically assumed to be of pivotal significance for all players involved in the Middle East gambit, especially Russia, whose financial fortunes are directly linked to the fluctuations of oil prices. However, the traditional instability in the region, the latest shockwaves of the ”Arab Spring,” and the escalation of tension between Israel and Iran keep prices high without a special intervention from Moscow. Aside from this, Russia has little to gain from its involvement in the region, as its Middle Eastern politics seem to be more about pride than about financial gains.

Lacking the ability to impact the situation on the ground and losing last bits of diplomatic influence, Russia might be tempted to take a more adventurous stand on Middle Eastern issues in order to restore its ruined status on the Arab street. Yet, as long as the US maintains relations with the new Islamist regimes, Russia’s response will be mainly confined to the diplomatic realm. There is simply no space for the Russians in the new Middle East, as they have little or nothing to offer or contribute to the developing situation. On the other hand, should anything trigger a break in the fragile relationship between the Islamists and the US, and should the Americans retract their support, the Russians will be sure to jump in to fill the vacuum, seeking to regain influence – as they have always in the past – by supporting anti-American regimes. Unable to make serious financial contributions, however, they may try to compensate by offering weapons and diplomatic cover.

###

« Previous Articles

RSS Feed

back to top