And This Is How It’s Done

By Raheel Raza – a Pakistani-Canadian freelance writer and recipient of Canadian Ethnic Journalists and Writers Club.

Did US Congresswomen Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib really want to go to Israel? Maybe they never wanted to go but just wanted to create hysteria and garner attention, something at which they are experts. I think it’s the latter, and they got all the chatter.
Omar and Tlaib made it a point in their press conference on this issue to point out that they were “Muslim.” They also said they were going to meet people from both sides and work at “peace.” Yet they have no qualms about slamming the entire country and therefore the entire people – all the time.

Did Omar and Tlaib make a statement condemning the brutal murder of 17-year-old Rina Shnerb without simultaneously justifying anti-Jewish violence?

As a Muslim woman who has been to Israel a dozen times, let me tell them how it’s done. I fully support Israel’s right to exist with Jerusalem as its capital and the right of the Jewish people to be free from orchestrated antisemitic attacks.

 In my travels to Israel, I go with an open mind and no pre-conceived notions. I’m well aware of the problems, and I’ve met and spoken to people from both sides of the equation. I’ve met policy-makers, activists and ordinary citizens and heard their stories. It always amazes me how critical Israelis can sometimes be about their own government, but this is what a democracy is all about.

So, I invite Omar and Tlaib to come with me. I will show them what Israel stands for and the beauty of the Israeli people.

Raheel Raza  who has written for The Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, Khaleej Times is president of the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow. She will speak on non-violent Islamism in the West during the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism’s 19th World Summit on Counter-Terrorism at IDC Herzliya.

ARAB CAUTION AGAINST AMERICA’S FOREIGN POLICY

Kheir Allah, Al-Arab, London, August 23

Six years ago today, the Syrian regime resorted to the use of chemical weapons against its people for the very first time. More than 1,500 civilians were killed in the province of Ghouta near Damascus.
The Obama administration quickly promised to respond to the attack, especially after the US president drew redlines against the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime. Then-US secretary of defense Chuck Hagel hastily returned to Washington, where he was preparing a response to Assad’s criminal attack.
But suddenly the US president changed his mind, just as everyone was prepared to deal a blow to the Syrian regime. The Syrian opposition was encircling Damascus and approaching sensitive sites in the Syrian capital, the international community condemned Assad, but Obama backed down. Hagel himself, who resigned from his position, wondered why Obama changed his mind in such a dramatic way.

A few years later it finally became clear: the Obama administration was secretly negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program. Obama did not want to take any steps that could upset Tehran. He allowed the mullahs to kill hundreds, even thousands of Syrians. What he didn’t allow was any attempt to prevent the Islamic Republic from blackmailing the West, including the United States. In the summer of 2015, the G5+1 signed an agreement with Iran over its nuclear program.
The deal was the ultimate goal of the US president, who falsely believed that terrorism comes only from al-Qaeda or ISIS. He forgot, for example, that the ideological roots of al-Qaeda and ISIS came from the Muslim Brotherhood, whose leader Obama supported during the Egypt coup. Thankfully, in the end, the Egyptian street, supported by the Egyptian military and Gulf states, had the courage to defy the American administration regarding Egypt. It is no secret that these Arab countries, led by Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait, rushed to support Egypt and provided it with the necessary financial and political support it needed to get back on its feet.

What was unique about the Arab position at this time was not only its caution with the Obama administration, but also its boldness to confront Washington’s foreign policy. Arab leaders witnessed Iran reaping the benefits of its blackmail. Tehran received billions of dollars from the United States and spent a good portion of this money on its expansion project, which spewed violence and hatred through the entire region, including in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.
Although President Donald Trump’s administration has been the antithesis of the Obama administration, especially in regard to Iran, in 2019 there is still reason to be cautious and fearful of reliving the 2013 experience. This past summer, the Iranians downed an American drone carrying sensitive equipment worth well over $140 million. The United States prepared to respond to this hostile act, especially after it confirmed that the plane, which was shot down over the Strait of Hormuz, was outside Iranian airspace. But at the last minute, Trump backed down for reasons still unknown to us.
Arab countries have the right to defend their interests regardless of who sits in the Oval Office. Of course, the current US administration knows Iran well. But this knowledge is not enough if one considers the broader American stance in the region. What is America’s policy in Yemen? What is its Syrian policy? What is its Iraqi policy? Last but not least, is there an American position that truly understands what is at stake in Lebanon?

We are living in a turbulent world and we must act with caution. More importantly, we must get answers and assurances from America about where it stands in regard to our security interests. By  Kheir Allah

Al-Arab, London.

Al-Arab (Arabic: العرب‎ meaning ‘The Arabs’) is a pan-Arab newspaper published from London and sold in a number of countries.

The Arab Voice August 24, 2019

Broken Iranian wings

By Ibrahim al-Zayadi

Al-Arab, London, August 17

After four decades of Iranian meddling in its neighbors’ affairs, we can now confidently say – based on historical evidence – that Tehran’s actions amount to real war crimes. Sadly, however, the international community has refused to punish Iran. Indeed, the majority of countries who proudly claim to fight terrorism have left Iran unscathed, dealing with the mullahs opportunistically – by embracing them when there is a financial interest and reprimanding them when there isn’t.

No city or village in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, Morocco and Sudan, nor some is East Asia, Europe, and Central America have been spared the evils of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Iran’s strength stems from two main sources. The first is its weaponry, whether these were inherited from the Shah’s regime or later obtained from North Korea, Russia and China. The second is the parties, organizations and militias that have been formed by the Iranian regime and used to spread its influence to neighboring countries. These include sleeper cells and proxy mercenaries, which are moved from time to time in accordance with the needs and circumstances of the regime. Thankfully, this status quo, which lasted for some four decades, began to change slowly thanks to US President Donald Trump and his decision to confront Iran. Now, the mullahs face two problems. Their use of battleships, aircraft carriers and intercontinental missiles and satellites have effectively rendered the mullahs’ physical weapons ineffective. Second, Iran’s armed wings in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen can no longer do anything of real military value in support of the regime due to a lack of funding and arms. As for the dormant cells of the regime, their dismantling, one after another, is well under way.

Similarly, international travel has become one of the most difficult things for anyone suspected of association with the Iranian regime. To put it more clearly, all of these Iranian proxies are like flies trapped in a glass bottle, seen by others but unable to hurt anyone but themselves.

They will eventually get burnt out and lose their wings.

IDLIB – WHERE TO FROM HERE? 

By Riad Naasan Agha
Al-Etihad, UAE, August 17

In Idlib, the last rebel-held Syrian province, nearly four million citizens are trapped, with many fleeing the shelling and destruction that previously forcibly displaced hundreds of thousands of people from their homes throughout the country. Some residents of Idlib might have preferred to avoid the destruction that surrounds them, but the Russians did not keep their promises and turned their backs against the Syrian people.
Had the Syrian regime presented a clear vision for the future of Syria and engaged the people in direct, genuine dialogue aimed at stopping the fighting, then maybe the bloodshed could have been prevented. But the regime’s insistence on crushing the opposition using military force has only exacerbated the war, threatening to make it last for a few more decades.

A senior Syrian official once asked me, “Why do the people of Idlib hate us?” I said, “Maybe because you never gave them any opportunity for a better future.” Idlib has been deprived of any economic opportunities for several decades, even though more than 93% of its youth hold university degrees. Had it not been for the labor migration to Greece and Cyprus, as well as to some Gulf countries, the people of Idlib would not have been able to find sources of livelihood. What is important is that I do not know what is the plan of Al-Nusra Front, and whether it will succeed in defeating Russia, Iran, and Damascus.
I regret the suffering of the inhabitants of villages and small towns destroyed by hundreds of thousands of raids and bombs. While they are recovering from one massacre after another, the whole world stands idly by, watching. Meanwhile, the Astana peace process is clearly aimed at enabling the Syrian regime to retake Idlib by military force. But the truth is that people prefer to die than to surrender.
The real question, therefore, is whether there is a sincere international initiative that brings life to the Geneva negotiations, opens a new page for the Syrian people, and shelters millions of Syrians from a major humanitarian disaster that is about to happen.

Riyad Nassan Agha is a former minister of culture of Syria. He served as Syria’s ambassador to Oman and the United Arab Emirates. He holds a PhD. degree in philosophy from the University of Damascus.

YEMENI SEPARATISTS AND THE JEDDAH CONFERENCE

By Abd al-Rahman al-Rashed

Asharq al-Awsat, London, August 19

Last week, we found ourselves facing another serious crisis in the region – perhaps one that could ignite fighting in Yemen for at least 10 more years. Thankfully, at this wonderful moment we see that this was avoided by prudence on all sides. Yemen’s Southern Transitional Council (STC) announced its willingness to join a conference in Saudi Arabia to discuss the future of Yemen.
Everyone is going to Jeddah to seek durable solutions. The STC has retreated from its takeover of Yemeni government institutions and issued statements confirming its acceptance of Yemen’s legitimacy as enshrined by the United Nations. Indeed, the STC reassured the Saudis, relieved the UAE of great embarrassment and, more importantly, saved itself and its people, the citizens of the South, and the entire region from more bloodshed.

But the debate, of course, will not stop. I have read articles by Dr. Mohammed al-Rumaihi and Dr. Saad al-Ajmi on the dispute. In short, they believe that the independence of southern Yemen is the best solution. Even educated Saudis believe that the Saudi interest is to carve out two or three Yemeni states, and not one united Yemen.
This is especially true since the experience of dealing with a unified Yemen ruled by the regime of the late president Ali Abdullah Saleh was difficult and harmful for Saudi Arabia. But it is dangerous to tamper with the political entities of states. I tell Dr. al-Rumaihi and Dr. al-Ajmi, these two esteemed Kuwaiti intellectuals, that delegitimizing and dismantling a state recognized by the UN threatens all countries in the region, including Kuwait itself. Accepting illegal separation is exactly the same as illegal annexation!
I am never against the right of southerners who want a separate state or the establishment of a southern republic, but they must achieve it by legitimate means, either by reaching understandings with the Yemeni state when its institutions return to functioning, or through the UN. We can spend the coming days talking about past mistakes, but this would be futile.
None of us truly believe that the southerners can reach a consensus on who should be their leader, let alone on the name of their hypothetical state, its government structure, and its laws. Instead, there are political strongmen with various allegiances fighting over the ability to lead the southerners in their quest for sovereignty. We can only hope that the parties meeting in Jeddah will engage in serious conversation about the nature of their relations with the central Yemeni state, leaving the talk of separation for the future, or assuming control of the narrative through the appropriate international legal channels. 

Abd al-Rahman al-Rashed

 Abdulrahman al-Rashed is the former General Manager of Al Arabiya News Channel. A veteran and internationally acclaimed journalist, he is a former editor-in-chief of the London-based leading Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, where he still regularly writes a political column. He has also served as the editor of Asharq al-Awsat’s sister publication, al-Majalla.

“Your Pens Should Be Broken” Journalist Jailed for Social Media Posts

(Journalist’s name withheld)

Charged with national security crimes for his social media posts, journalist Masoud Kazemi has been sentenced to 4.5 years in prison, of which he must serve two years (subject to appeal), his lawyer announced on June 2, 2019.

During his trial, presiding Judge Mohammad Moghiseh told Kazemi,  “you people have no right to breath; your hands should be crushed; you should be blown up with gunpowder poured into your mouth; your pens should be broken,” a source with detailed knowledge of Kazemi’s case told the Center for Human Rights in Iran (CHRI) on May 29, 2019.

Kazemi’s lawyer filed a complaint against Judge Moghiseh for his display of bias in Kazemi’s case but the former magazine editor has not been granted a case review.

“The revolutionary court sentenced my client to two years in prison for [the charges of] ‘publishing falsehoods,” two years in prison for “insulting the supreme leader” and another six months in prison for “insulting other officials”,” Kazemi’s attorney Ali Mojtahedzadeh told the state-funded Islamic Republic News Agency on June 2, 2019.

“In addition… the court banned my client from media activities for two years,” he added.

Under Article 134 of Iran’s Islamic Penal Code, Kazemi, the former editor-in-chief of the Sedaye Parsi (Persian Voice) political magazine, must serve no more than the maximum punishment for the charge that carries the heaviest sentence in cases involving multiple convictions—meaning to two years.

Kazemi, who has worked at major reformist newspapers in Iran including Ghanoon and Shargh, was arrested on November 6, 2018, for tweeting about alleged corruption at the Ministry of Industry, Mines and Trade, and questioning President Hassan Rouhani’s presidential adviser Hesamoddin Ashena about the murders of Iranian dissidents in the late 1990s when Ashena was deputy intelligence minister.

He was released on bail five days later but was unable to return to his job, leaving his family in severe financial hardship.

Judge Moghiseh is known in Iran for sentencing peaceful detainees including journalists, activists, and dissidents to lengthy prison terms in politically sensitive cases.

According to testimonies cited by Justice for Iran, an organization that has documented the executions of thousands of political prisoners in Iran in the 1980s, Moghiseh also played a significant role in the torture and persecution of political prisoners in Gohardasht, Evin, and Ghezelhesar prisons during that time.