Testbist – Page 197 – Testing grounds

Sarko and French Arabs

Interesting post at Aqoul on the fury of French Arabs at Nicholas Sarkozy’s pro-Israel comments during this war:

So Sarkozy bridged part of the gap between conservatives and xenophobes that weakened the classical French right. By doing so, he’s built a voter base large enough to make him the likely next conservative president. And unlike Jospin who lost Arab votes precisely after infuriating them by his statements against Hezbollah – the Sarkozy right-wing base is strong enough not to need Arabs as referees and there will probably be no conjunction of factors which could make Arab votes such a key factor again for the 2007 elections. All the talk about an Arab voter base which suddenly appeared in the aftermath of the 2002 election and on which Arabs could have capitalized is gone. Despite more Arab-related arguments against Sarkozy in 2007 than against Jospin in 2002, Arabs will be virtually powerless. Probably a proof that a spontaneous success gotten by luck more than by political organization and maturity dies away as quickly as it comes.

I tried to leave a comment but got an error message, so here it is (it makes more sense if you read the full article):

I am not so sanguine about the CFCM – it puts Islamists and people who are essentially agents for the Moroccan and Algerian governments in charge of representing the entire Maghrebi-Arab community.

I interpret Sarko’s pro-Israel stance not as an appeal to the far-right (which is not necessarily pro-Israel, sometimes for anti-Semitic reasons) but rather the mainstream Atlanticist right and part of the hawkish left. Basically his position dovetails nicely with the growing number of French intellectuals who are taking a pro-American stance, such as BHL, Alain Finkelkraut, and others. This is the fundamental split between the Chiracquistes and Sarko: it’s about their position on the US as an ally and as a model to change French society.

As for an “Arab vote” in France, as far as I can see it is not organized, so it’s hard to predict its impact.

Baathist coup foiled in Iraq?

Reports are emerging that exiled Iraqi Baathists met in Damascus (a while ago, but not clear when) to plan a coup against the Maliki government that they believe would be welcomed by the US:

We have learned from authoritative sources based in Damascus that a group of approximately 400 former Iraqi military ex-officers (primarily cadre who are Baathist and secular non-Baathists) held a conference in the Syrian capital to coordinate efforts to carry out a coup d’état to topple the new Government of Iraq. While the source has impeccable credentials, the advisability and practicality of putting in place this conspiracy seems extreme. More particularly, the plan resulted from the strange certainty of some former Baathist officers and senior political officials that, once the coup was underway, the U.S. would support it — reputedly because American officials, Baathists maintained, were fed up with the continued incompetence of the al-Jaafari/al-Maliki governments.

The belief of the ex-Baathists was that American officials were yearning for the Saddam Hussein era — a period of vicious dictatorship, albeit without the instability currently eviscerating the country. The ex-Baathists viewpoint seemed underpinned by a report that the United States had once groomed a strong-man to take over the country in the wake of Saddam Hussein’s toppling. The rumour was that General Nizar al-Khazrachi, who had defected to Denmark in the run-up to the second Iraq War, had once been contacted by the Americans with an offer of a return to Iraq to lead a military-style government. The rumour was that the Americans had finally induced Khazrachi to return to Iraq, and set him up in a makeshift suite of offices at the Baghdad International Airport — from where he could plot against the elected Government.

The Damascus group included some of the more well-known lights of the former Baathist regime, who fled the country on the eve of the war, to take up residence in Qatar, Jordan and other nearby countries. The conference was interrupted by news that the Americans had succeeded in killing the head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — and so the discussion quickly turned to the impact that killing would have on the Iraqi resistance. The tenor of the discussion resulted in a consensus that Zarqawi’s death would weaken the resistance, if only for a short time, until a more coherent leadership cadre could exert its influence. “The resistance is more broad-based than many Americans believe,” one attendee at the conference noted. “It may be that Zarqawi’s death will even strengthen the resistance, providing a rally point for increased numbers of fighters coming from foreign countries”.

I don’t even understand how they thought this might work and how they thought they might get the Shia militias to cooperate…

Via Praktike.

Reality hits

Israeli misgivings about Olmert’s and Peretz’s grandstanding:

It is doubtful that Olmert and Peretz, even in their worst nightmares, ever envisioned this spontaneous operation extending and transforming into the longest war to which the Israeli home front has been exposed since the War of Independence (not counting the terror attacks). But the enchanting myth of a “speedy, strong and elegant” IDF that “supplies the goods” within two or three days is blowing up in their faces, just as it blew up in the faces of their predecessors.

The article raises the big question: would Ariel Sharon have done this?

Beirut theater welcomes refugees

Because sometimes you need feel-good stories:

BEIRUT, Lebanon – Al-Madinah Theater was supposed to show art films this summer. Instead it has become a home to scores of refugees, and a cultural oasis where their children can act, draw and watch movies.

So far, 85 people have taken shelter from Israeli attacks, laying mattresses in the dressing rooms and wide corridors of two underground floors. In an office building above the theater, 125 others have taken refuge.

Volunteers show up daily at the theater on Hamra Street — several miles from Israel’s relentless bombardment of southern Beirut — to give art and drama workshops to help the displaced youth channel pent-up fears and anger into creative expression.

On the main stage, children scamper around their drama teacher, their giggles echoing through the cavernous theater. On a lower floor, youths bend over sheets of paper, drawing trees, butterflies and, in some cases, scenes from the hostilities that have forced them out of their homes in Beirut’s suburbs and southern Lebanon, where Israel is focusing its strikes on Hezbollah militants.

Word of the workshops has reached other refugee centers, and the number of children attending has swelled from about 30 to more than 100 on some days.

Read the rest.

Zawahri: Gamaa Islamiya members join Al Qaeda

Ayman Al Zawahri just showed up on Al Jazeera with a tape saying that several members of the Egyptian Gamaa Islamiya had now joined Al Qaeda. Here’s an initial wire report:

AP 05.08.06 | 22h14

Al-Qaida’s No. 2 leader announced in a new videotape aired Saturday that an Egyptian militant group has joined the terror network. The Egyptian group, Gamaa Islamiya, is apparently a revived version of a militant group that waged a campaign of violence in Egypt during the 1990s but had largely been suppressed by a government crackdown. «We announce to the Islamic nation the good news of the unification of a great faction of the knights of the Gamaa Islamiya … with the Al-Qaida group,» Ayman al-Zawahri, the deputy leader of al-Qaida said in the videotape aired on the Al-Jazeera news network.

While it’s not clear what the immediate significance of this in terms of Al Qaeda’s operational abilities, it is quite a momentous even from an Egyptian perspective. Firstly, it casts a shadow over the decade-long process of re-integration of former Gamaa Islamiya militants, starting with the public recantation of a good deal of the imprisoned leadership and the release of hundreds of prisoners.

Secondly, on a symbolic level it marks the reunificaiton of the Gamaa Islamiya and Islamic Jihad, groups that parted over method in the late 1970s and went on two different paths: a popular militant movement borne out of universities in Upper Egypt in the 1970s and 1980s that originally had government backing before it turned terrorists/insurrectionist for Gamaa Islamiya; and a cell-structured highly secretive group that carried out political assassinations as well as terror attacks for Islamic Jihad.

Islamic Jihad now only exists (aside potential sleeper agents) as Al Qaeda since Zawahri teamed up with Bin Laden in the 1990s; Gamaa Islamiya was on its way towards social reintegration (former member Montasser Al Zayat, a prominent lawyer, was a parliamentary election candidate in 2005). Tonight’s announcement spells out the possibility of a dissident wing of Gamaa Islamiya that had refused the recantation of the prison leadership (actually we know there are several dissident wings) joining Al Qaeda, and possibly making use of old networks in Egypt. So how worried should we be?

Probably not too much. The exiled Gamaa Islamiya leadership in Europe and elsewhere did not have mass appeal, indeed post-9/11 it became very difficult for it to do anything at all — especially after Londonistan began to be closed down. We will probably see in the next few days a statement by the imprisoned leadership condemning their old comrades and reiterating the recantation orchestrated by the Egyptian security services in the late 1970s.

I just spoke to Arabist contributor Hossam al-Hamalawy, who follows Islamist movements closely and has worked on rendition issues for human rights groups (read this article by him for background on the recantation). Hossam saw the Zawahri video, which I missed, he remembers three names mentioned by Zawahri:

1. Mohammed Shakwi al-Islambuli, the brother of Sadat assassin Khaled al-Islambuli, who lived in Iran (where his brother is a hero) at least until 9/11 and has been on the record for being against the imprisoned leadership’s recantation.

2. Mustafa al-Murq’, alias Abu Issar, who was based in London and was famously against the Algerian FIS’ killing of civilians. He also operated many of the Gamaa Islamiya’s outpost in Afghanistan during the Afghan civil war.

3. Most strangely, Rifai Ahmed Taha, who is believed to have been rendered from Syria to Egypt in 2001 and in prison ever since (although some believe he was executed.) Taha was known as the Gamaa’s “military commander” has also spent time in Afghanistan, and was even reported in 1998 to have signed the founding charter of Al Qaeda (which would mean he was already operating under Al Qaeda’s aegis.) Taha has reportedly received visits from his family in prison, but some say he was also heavily tortured. There is virtually no way he would have agreed to this while in prison, since he’d be signing his own death warrant.

What all this points to is that it’s unlikely to be more than a publicity stunt by a once major militant Islamist group that is now for the most part irrelevant in the world of Jihadis. As for membership of Al Qaeda, beyond allegiance to “Emir” Osama, it probably doesn’t mean any real operational co-ordination but following Al Qaeda’s general guidelines and stances on current events as highlighted in these kinds of tapes.

Pentagon to train Lebanese army?

The interesting thing about this AP story about US military training for the Lebanese army, written by hardcore pro-Israel hack Barry Schweid, is that it makes absolutely no mention of the Lebanese reaction to the proposal — whether in the Lebanese government or Lebanese army. It’s clear what the idea is, though:

The administration is striving for a resolution that would end the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, now in its fourth week, and also establish conditions for a lasting cease-fire. Many other countries favor an immediate cease-fire.

I put this paragraph in just to show Barry Schweid’s work: no question of the administration’s definition of a “lasting ceasefire,” and a throwaway about what other countries want — the implication being they want an immediate, but not a lasting, ceasefire.

But I digress. It continues:

The military training would be designed to help the Lebanese armed forces “exercise control and sovereignty over all of Lebanese territory once we have an end to the fighting in such a way that is durable,” McCormack said.

So how are we to know that the White House or Pentagon has even discussed this with the Lebanese armed forces? And who exactly is going to disarm Hizbullah? A US-trained Lebanese army? Will they train them like they did many armies and security services across the region — SAVAK in Iran during the 1960s and 1970s for instance? Or just supply them with tools like tear gas (riot-control police in Egypt) and legcuffs or electric batons (Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, used for torture? Is US policy really encouraging the Lebanese army to take on Hizbullah — i.e. start another civil war? I’m not surprised we don’t see a Lebanese general confirming this.

Canada’s pro-Israel stance backfires on Harper

Conservative Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is paying the price for his support of Israel in the current war. The 250,000-strong -Lebanese-Canadian community is furious with his description of Israel’s strikes as a “moderate response” to Hizbullah’s activities. Polls now indicate that 77% of Canadians want to remain neutral on this war while 61% of people in Quebec, where Harper’s conservatives were hoping for a breakthrough, are resolutely against supporting Israel. A coalition of 60 NGOs will be protesting on Sunday against the government’s position. As many as 50,000 Lebanese-Canadian were believed to be in Lebanon when the war started, and several have already been killed by Israel strikes.

Also see this Le Monde article [$].

The talk of the town

A conversation I had last night about Cairo’s private schools:

Me: When does school start again?
Kid: In September.
Me: Will it be mostly the same people who were in your class last year?
Kid: No some people have left.
Mother: [Interjecting] Actually there’s a rather suspicious number of people who have switched to the Cairo American College (the biggest American school in Cairo.)
Me: How come?
Mother: Because Hosni Mubarak’s grandson is going there.
Me: Alaa’s son?
Mother: Yes.
Me: And people are moving to CAC to make sure their children get to know him?
Mother: Looks like it.
Me: [Perplexed] So basically it means that these people, the country’s elite, still think that in 15-20 years time it might still be an advantage to be close to the Mubarak family?
Mother: Well, yes — look at the elite today, they all went to school with each other.
Me: [Excitedly] But that probably means they think Gamal Mubarak will be the next president!
Mother: Well…

Nasrallah calls for avoiding civilian targets

Hassan Nasrallah has called for avoiding civilian targets on both sides:

BEIRUT: Hizbullah’s leader offered Thursday to stop pounding Israel’s “northern settlements” if the Jewish state refrained from bombarding Lebanon’s “cities and civilians.” Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah also issued a warning, however, in a televised speech: “Let my words be clear, any attack on Lebanon’s capital, Beirut, will result in Hizbullah bombarding the Zionist entity’s capital, Tel Aviv.”

In an almost immediate response aired on Israeli public television, a senior military official said Israel would destroy all of Lebanon’s infrastructure if Tel Aviv were hit.

“We are ready to keep the whole thing restricted to a military fight with the Israeli Army,” Nasrallah said, “on the ground, fighters to fighters.”

I’m not sure how to interpret this except as an attempt to make Israel look bad and reinforce its image of an army that targets civilians, since Hizbullah would be in fact probably unwilling to fight a direct “battlefield” war rather than a guerrilla one, which it has proved relatively effective at doing. Anyway, the rest of the article is interesting — and I’m surprised to see the Daily Star describe Hizbullah as “the resistance.”

Bush didn’t know about Muslim sects

Absolutely nothing surprising about this:

Former Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith is claiming President George W. Bush was unaware that there were two major sects of Islam just two months before the President ordered troops to invade Iraq, RAW STORY has learned.

In his new book, The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created A War Without End, Galbraith, the son of the late economist John Kenneth Galbraith, claims that American leadership knew very little about the nature of Iraqi society and the problems it would face after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

A year after his “Axis of Evil” speech before the U.S. Congress, President Bush met with three Iraqi Americans, one of whom became postwar Iraq’s first representative to the United States. The three described what they thought would be the political situation after the fall of Saddam Hussein. During their conversation with the President, Galbraith claims, it became apparent to them that Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites.

Galbraith reports that the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam–to which the President allegedly responded, “I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!”

I bet he thought the word “Shiite” was pretty funny, too.