Religion, Nationalism, and Terror

The Jamestown Foundation, 10/29/2007

By Babak Rahimi (from Terrorism Monitor, October 25) -

The recent “pact of honor” made by two of Iraq’s most influential Shiite clerics, Moqtada al-Sadr and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim—aimed at preventing violence and helping to maintain the “Islamic and national interest” of Iraq—appears to signal a significant shift toward stability in Iraq. The two leaders have pledged to enhance relations between their respective groups, merging media and cultural projects, and to refrain from launching negative propaganda against each other (Fars News Agency, October 6). Yet, more importantly, the pact calls for promotion of the legal-political order of post-Baathist Iraq, a major move that could give new life to Nuri al-Maliki’s government and curtail potential violence in the south. As the first official agreement between these two prominent leaders, the forged pact can also be recognized as a huge step in improving intra-Shiite relations. Not since the formation of the United Iraqi Alliance, which brought together a number of Shiite political parties under the spiritual leadership of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in 2003, has Shiite politics seen such a unified front. The struggle for domination between rival Shiite groups has caused huge problems in the south, especially after the December 2005 elections. Despite a number of attempts for reconciliation, the enmity between al-Hakim and al-Sadr and their militias has remained a major security problem, especially in the provinces of Basra and Maysan, where the two factions are vying for control over oil and territory.

Disagreements only intensified after the British withdrawal from Basra in early September, causing trouble for an already unstable Iraqi government seeking reconciliation over major political issues such as federalism and the distribution of oil. Seen in such a context, this new deal is made at a time when the “surge” strategy has gradually shown signs of relative military success in places like the eastern and central provinces, where al-Qaeda forces continue to lose the support of Sunni Iraqis. Yet, one important question remains to be answered: does the new pact promise any significant improvement in the country’s political situation at such a crucial stage in its history?

Tony Karon, Rootless Cosmopolitan » Blog Archive » Give Fareed Zakaria a Medal!, October 31, 2007

Fareed Zakaria deserves a medal for breaking with the mainstream media pack to slap down, with the requisite rudeness, the hysteria over Iran being manufactured by the neocons, opportunist Israeli politicians and the Bush Administration. Perhaps stung by having participated in a secret Bush Administration policy discussion to help shape the Iraq war policy before the invasion, Zakaria is acting with honor now to prevent another disaster. This while much of the rest of the media is futzing around asking the wrong questions on Iran and getting the answers that only the wrong questions can produce. Exhibit A: The Washington Post editorial suggesting that the only “alternative” to harsh new sanctions that most of the international community opposes is war, and then scolding “those who say they oppose military action — including a couple of the second-tier Democratic presidential candidates — to portray the sanctions initiative as a buildup to war by Mr. Bush. We’ve seen no evidence that the president has decided on war, and it’s clear that many senior administration officials understand the package as the best way to avoid military action. It is not they but those who oppose tougher sanctions who make war with Iran more likely.”

If and when a war with Iran, with all its terrible consequences that leaves many thousands dead and the U.S. in an even weaker position than it is now, those looking for explanations will do well to remember how their media failed them — with some honorable exceptions. Of course, the hysteria is being fed by the fact that it’s an election season here, and a bunch of mediocre candidates is trying to outdo one another by talking tough on Iran, which, as CNN tells us, has become the new Iraq as far as the presidential campaign is concerned.

Hamas leader Ghazi Hamad at his home in Rafah, Gaza Strip

Dion Nissenbaum’s Blog: Checkpoint Jerusalem, October 31, 2007

One of the first Hamas leaders I ever met in the Gaza Strip was Ghazi Hamad, who was then working as editor of a pro-Hamas newspaper in Gaza City.

Among journalists, Hamad was a favored barometer. He was a Hamas confidante who steered clear of some of the standard revolutionary rhetoric you would get from the more stalwart Hamas leaders.

Within Hamas, Hamad is a relative pragmatist and realist who has tried, with some success, to nudge the movement towards political moderation.

Hamad was among those who urged Hamas to run in last year’s legislative elections and ran as an unsuccessful candidate himself. When Hamas took power, Hamad became a spokesman for the new government and public face for PA PM Ismail Haniyeh.

But it now appears that Hamas moderates are being silenced as hard-liners re-assert their dominance.

Hamad has been quietly pushed aside after delivering a caustic critique of Hamas in an open letter to Hamas leaders.

Daniel Seidelmann, Annapolis and the “Jerusalem paradigm” | openDemocracy, October 31, 2007

Sit any Friday afternoon on the corner of el-Wad Street and St Stephen’s Road in Jerusalem’s Old City, just opposite the Austrian hospice. Thousands of Muslim worshippers throng to the mosques on Haram al-Sharif. Additional thousands of Orthodox Jews flock to prayers at the Western Wall. And the brown-robed Franciscans bearing the cross turn the corner and proceed to the Third Station of the Cross. Lest this picture appear overly idyllic: CCTV security cameras are ever-present, as are patrols of the Israel border police, while a handful of messianic Jewish settlers dart out of the Muslim quarter alleys.

In that one small scene, you can see it all. Three mutually incompatible religious narratives (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and two mutually incompatible national narratives (the Israeli and the Palestinian) cohabit the same sacred and secular space, not larger than three square kilometres in size. Jerusalem has an undeserved reputation for being nitroglycerin - any random jolt causes it to explode. That’s nonsense. For the past 1,300 years, Jerusalem has been the counter-paradigm to a “clash of civilisations”. It isn’t “fuzzy-warm” or “touchy-feely”, and no “it’s-a-small-world-after-all” tunes waft in the air, but it works.

That’s the good news. Here’s the bad news. Jerusalem’s Old City is also the playground for Muslim, Christian and Jewish exclusionary fundamentalists who seek, respectively: jihad, armageddon and wars of Mitzvah. Jerusalem may not be nitroglycerin, but if handled poorly, i.e., by allowing the radical fundamentalists to romp freely, it becomes a small atomic device.

The crucible

The forthcoming Annapolis meeting - at a date yet to be confirmed (possibly 26 November 2007) - is not merely an attempt to substantively address the core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is also (and perhaps foremost) an attempt to realign the forces of moderation in the middle east into a powerful, albeit uneasy, coalition that will not only combat but provide a positive option in face of an ascending radical Islam. As such, Jerusalem will not only be a prominent item on the Annapolis agenda. It will also be the physical embodiment of Annapolis’s goals - a non-violent interface between Islam, the Arab world and the west; or alternatively, an embodiment of Annapolis’s worst dreams - the place where the tectonic plates of Islam and the west crush and grind one another, with all that ensues.

For decades, Jerusalem has been peddled as the “most difficult to solve” and left to some undetermined future date. No longer: Jerusalem’s time has come. Regardless of how counterintuitive this may sound, seriously addressing the final-status issues relating to Jerusalem is one of the easier ways of generating high dividends at a reasonable cost.

Saladin Sultan and one of his five children stand in the bare family living room in Beit Lahiya, Gaza Strip. Dion Nissenbaum/MCT.

Dion Nissenbaum, Conditions worsen in Gaza as Israel tightens grip, McClatchy Washington Bureau | 10/29/2007 |

“The situation is so bad that you really prefer to die,” Sultan said. “I prefer to die rather than to live a life like this.”

In the four months since Hamas seized effective control of the Gaza Strip in a brutal military takeover, Israel has cut off the desolate region from the outside world and created a political crisis for the Islamist militant group now leading the government here.

Popular support for Hamas appears to be dwindling as frustration builds.

While Hamas managed to restore a semblance of safety to the Gaza Strip, it has failed to do much more. The Hamas-led government enjoys virtually no international recognition. Israel and the United States have rushed to shore up Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who has championed the international campaign to marginalize Hamas.

Now Hamas is confronting intense internal fissures.

Ghazi Hamad, one of the best-known Hamas pragmatists in the Gaza Strip, has been effectively sidelined after criticizing the militant group for leading the Palestinians into an international political ambush.