Muffled Screams of Gaza

Turkish Weekly Journal

The recent Egyptian government’s decision to seal the few “tunnels of life” that allowed people of Gaza to bypass the on-going inhumane economic strangulation, its harassment and cruel treatment of the participants of Gaza Freedom March and the Viva Palestina humanitarian convoy earned it a prominent position in history’s page of shame. A page crowded by wealthy Arab nations who failed the Palestinian people and abandoned them at their most vulnerable time.

However, by no means should that sideline drama veil or in any way divert attention away from the root cause of the problem- the over six decades long oppression imposed upon the Palestinian people.

Truth be told: in that period, the state of Israel has occupied Palestine with iron fist; denying Palestinians the right to self-determination and coercing part of their “elite” to surrender into what seems like a condition of eternal subjugation. However, the gravest of all the Palestinian sufferings is embodied in the suffering of the people of Gaza as they endure a vicious economic strangulation unilaterally imposed by Israel. And despite world wide condemnation of that egregious draconian policy, Israel continues to operate with impunity devoid of any conscience.

In their 575 pages report released last September, the fact-finding mission on Israel’s disproportionate use of force in Gaza appointed by the UN Human Rights Commission has confirmed the ugly truth that most of the Western media were inoculated to under report, or outright ignore.

The mission was led by Judge Richard Goldstone- former member of the South African Constitutional Court and former Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. And while the report also blamed Hamas, it highlights that “there was strong evidence to establish that numerous serious violations of international law, both humanitarian law and human rights law, were committed by Israel during the military operations in Gaza…actions amounting to war crimes and possibly, in some respects, crimes against humanity, were committed by the Israel Defense Force.”

According to article 39 of the report, the Israeli forces have intentionally targeted and attacked Al Quds Hospital in and the adjacent ambulance depot in Gaza with white phosphorous shells- an internationally banned chemical substance that, among other things, instantaneously burns the human being into skeleton.

However, despite the condemning findings in the report; sadly, it too, has proven yet another exercise in futility. And, though the key recommendation of Goldstone was for the UN Security Council to pass a resolution mandating a credible investigation into the war crimes allegations by the International Criminal Court, no such action has been taken.

In reaction to the report, the US Congress—while succumbing to the “Israel Lobby”—has passed a non-binding resolution condemning the Goldstone Report. The resolution was intended to express unequivocal blind loyalty to Israel, and to pressure the Obama administration to use its veto power (as a permanent member of the Security Council) against any resolution that might expose Israel. Apparently, the strategy worked; and the report is now piling dust in the oblivion.

For whatever it’s worth, it is this kind of culture of impunity that, according to Goldstone, “emboldens Israel and her conviction of being untouchable.” However, this concern was immediately dismissed as anti-Semitic by the vocal blind loyalists and the supporters of oppressive Zionism. Never mind that Judge Goldstone is Jewish, and he is a supporter of Israel’s right to exist.

Make no mistake, anti-Semitism is a real racist phenomenon; however, the politically motivated excessive use of the term to character assassinate and silence legitimate critics and peace and justice advocates such as former President Jimmy Carter and Archbishop Desmond Tutu simply defeats the purpose.

Meanwhile, though the Obama administration is showing signs of discomfort with the current Israeli government, the U.S. foreign policy toward Middle East is still driven by blind loyalty.

As the Obama administration tries to reduce the post 9/11tension between US and the Islamic world and rein in on the rapid growth of extremism, the Palestine issue remains an open sore that is festering in America’s foreign policy. And, while the current administration has attempted to demonstrate its intention of becoming an honest broker by appointing a credible diplomat—former Senator George Mitchell—as the Middle East Envoy, Israel continues its belligerent oppression and expansionist policy by defiantly building new settlements.

Led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, Israel is adamant to continue the ever-expanding land grab driven by illegal home demolitions and confiscations, daily dreadful human rights abuses at check points, random imprisonment and assassinations, suppression of independent media, and systematic ethnic-cleansing of Palestinians. This, needless to say, has frustrated the Obama administration whose out of the ordinary reaction to Netanyahu’s visit to the US has caused Israel a big embarrassment.

Not since 1990 when then Secretary of State, James Baker, sent a blunt (public) message to then Israeli Prime Minister, Ytsakh Shamir, telling him “call us when you are serious about peace...the telephone number is 1-202-546-1414'' has US leadership sent Israel a stern message that its actions are unacceptable.

And though this was not a decision to stop or even suspend the roughly $3 billion unrestricted aid given to Israel every year, it still turned many heads and galvanized the usual suspects to come after Obama with all sorts of accusations.

In an article intended to rally the troops against Obama, Jerusalem Post’s hawkish columnist, Caroline Glick, wrote “It isn't every day that a visiting leader from a strategically vital US ally is brought into the White House in an unmarked van in the middle of the night rather than greeted like a friend at the front door; is forbidden to have his picture taken with the president; is forced to leave the White House alone, through a side exit…”.

However, at the end of the day, convincing Israel to do the right thing and to stop establishing new facts on the ground to further complicate an already complex political issue will require more than symbolism. And nothing substantive is likely to happen till the US modifies its one-sided Middle East policy. Meanwhile, Israel will continue business as usual. It might invade Gaza again. Some opinion makers in Israel are already boasting about how “Operation Cast Lead 2” would look like with the use of “advanced Israeli-made Marakava 4 Tanks”.

Nothing equates to oppression more than the choice that an apathetic witness makes to not, at least, hate the cruelty that he or she witnessed in the mind and heart. And oppression is what Pharaoh and Hitler have done to the Jews and indeed what Israel does to the Palestinian people on a daily bases.

A New Paradigm for Engaging Somalia

Huffington Post

The stakes are much higher than ever before. And, despite the negative reports that dominate the news and thus perpetuate the sense of hopelessness, voices of reason are becoming more audible against the current senseless violence, chaos and extremism. More and more Somalis are coming to realize that the path ahead leads nowhere except the assured suicide of a nation.

In various circles--especially within the Somali Diaspora--there are lively discussions on the seemingly forgotten values of compromise, coexistence, collective security and common-good. And the consensus seems to gravitate toward two particular priorities.
First, in supporting the unity government despite its relative challenges, deficiencies and dysfunctions, so long as it puts reconciliation on top of its agenda and works toward the eradication of the clan-based appointment system known as "4.5" (four point half).

Second, advocating for the international community's direct involvement in solving the Somali political problem. Yes, that same political entity that has no transparent vision, mission or any form of accountability as it has no physical office or address, no overtly known leader or board of trustees, no telephone number or e-mail address. And yes, that same political powerhouse that prematurely used the military option against the Islamic Courts Union and supported Ethiopia in its brutal occupation of Somalia, and abandoned Somalia for two decades to descend into the lowest of the low. After all it is the only thing that makes pragmatic sense.

On their part, as was reiterated in the 16th meeting of the ICG (International Contact Group) recently held in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, the international community is committed to take a more active role in the Somali issue.

The atrocious December 3 bombing that killed 22 people, including cabinet ministers, graduated medical students, faculty and parents during a graduation ceremony is now recognized as the tipping point of two decades of violence in Somalia. Since that horrific event, there has been anxious maneuvering on the part of the international community to accelerate its involvement and take direct sustainable actions that help stabilize the situation.

Though the international community's interest in Somalia is broad, here is some of the oft-cited strategic rationale:

 To prevent potential spread of transnational terrorism
 To prevent radicalization of Somali Diaspora youth
 To find a home for the floating command center known as AFRICOM (Africa Command Center)
 To control the Indian Ocean and thus control the life-line of China's energy security as its oil imports from various African nations travel through that route
 To protect one of the world's most critical commercial arteries from piracy
 To monitor and stabilize the threat coming from a volatile geographical area that the Pentagon refers as The Arc of Instability [Somalia, Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Yemen, and Kenya. 2/3 of the world's refugee population come from three of these countries]
 To provide access to the identified but unexplored natural resources

The UN economic sanctions imposed on Eritrea for its role in funding the militant Al-Shabab and Hizbul Islam against the unity government are seen as the first step toward the reinvigorated commitment. Meanwhile, within the international community, more specifically the US policy which functions as its moral compass, the remnants of the previous administration are relentlessly pushing the military option--including the use of private security contractors--as they claim that al-Qaida has already set up an active terrorist franchise in Somalia, though there is hardly convincing evidence to confirm that.

As was learned from the Iraq war, if you draw the devil on the walls long enough, the devil will eventually appear in person. Claim that Al-Qaida has found a base in Somalia long enough and that will surely become the case in due course. That could ignite new problems and disasters in Somalia.

If there is any wisdom to be gained out of this young 21st Century, it has to do with the costly lesson that "hard power" (mainly military, technological, and economic) alone cannot sustain peace or political influence. Any effort intended for effective political problem-solving and conflict-resolution must be made of a mix that includes "soft power" (public diplomacy, humanitarian and development aid, strategic educational campaigns, political and/or economic pressure). China uses this latter approach to expand its political influence around the world.

If military power alone could stabilize Somalia or in any way solve its political problem, it would've happened when thousands of US Marines were stationed in Somalia between 1992 and 1994; or when the late General Mohamed Farrah Aidid assembled the largest ever clan-coalition between 1995 and 19996; or when Ethiopia unleashed its brutal 2 year occupation between 2007 and 2009.

So, any effective engagement on the part of the international community would require an approach that is radically different from the one applied in the last two decades; and this, needless to say, would require new thinking. The all too familiar kneejerk reactions when it comes to dealing with "Islamists" have proven counterproductive. Relying solely on violence would only make matters worse, especially for the estimated 3.5 million people on the verge of starvation.

And, since all other things have failed, it behooves the international community to try soft power while expanding the African Union-mandated AMISOM into a UN operation. Adding forces from Muslim countries such as Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and Pakistan, and keeping the frontline states such as Ethiopia and Kenya out.

Soft power is by no means cheap; however, it is much cheaper than wars and their destruction of lives and properties.

Therefore, the international community should flood Somalia with food and medicine--an amount that far exceeds what would eventually be stolen and end up in the wrong hands. The supply should be so abundant that the biggest problem becomes keeping pace with storage and distribution of these essential human needs. Despite the seeming humanitarian extravagance, this approach, which I referred to as Operation 3.5 in another article, is likely to be much cheaper than the military option.

Second, to invest in a national disarmament project in which people are offered to sell their weapons for highly competitive prices and all disarmed individuals are offered training programs such as micro-enterprise (small businesses to sustain themselves) and perhaps offered small grants after completing such programs.

Third, start a strategic reconstruction project--a massive construction project to build a safe haven for essential institutions and to provide jobs to many who currently have to do the unthinkable to feed themselves and their families.

Fourth, to empower civil societies already engaged in promoting inter-Somali dialogue that are sporadically building bridges of understanding, collaboration and forgiveness. With the right training and funding, some of these organizations could play pivotal role in paving the way for a viable organic reconciliation process woven with the necessary religious and cultural values.

Fifth, offer confidence-building amnesty to key individual players who are on the US terrorist list, as these lists further radicalize people.

There is cross-generational rising political consciousness, or movement, if you will, that is gaining traction. Its motto is, "enough is enough." The rapidly growing segment of the population which espouses that view is ready to welcome any new idea or initiative that is different than the rackets of the past two decades. They hinge their hope on President Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, whose vision, charisma and moral balance radiate promising optimism.

Shariah in Lawless Somalia

Abukar Arman
Sunday Times (South Africa)

Nowhere in the world is Shariah more contested ( yet seldom debated) than in war-weary Somalia where each of the entities competing for power claims to have embraced it while condemning its detractor, or rather, its enemy, as a dangerous imposter.

All the colorful politics motivating each contender aside, the most pressing question begging an answer is: Can lawless Somalia be governed by Shariah?

Short answer: It depends!

If by Shariah we mean the Talibanesque, self-righteous, and unjust brand currently being practiced by the Somali Neo-Islamists known as al-Shabab and Hizbul Islam, the answer is: No.

As these two groups have been asserting their authority through violence-driven territorial expansion, they have been rapidly loosing the public confidence necessary for them to sustain any gains. Horrific accounts attesting to their ignorance and to the cruelty of their method have been stirring panic and cultivating hate. Stories such as the two Neo-Islamist assassins who followed their victim-to-be into a mosque and prayed alongside him only to shoot him in the head after he stepped outside the mosque raise serious questions regarding these groups’ understanding of Islam and Shariah.

Theirs is an obtuse, if not dysfunctional, interpretation of Shariah. They are oblivious to the education-based societal transformation that the classic Shariah seeks to achieve. To them, Shariah is a purposeless, uncompassionate, punishment-driven set of laws that are arbitrarily implemented without consideration of time, circumstances or objectives.

Therefore, it is a matter of time before the masses would conquer their collective fear and revolt against this accountable to no one, selectively oppressive, and entirely alien brand of Shariah.

If, however, by Shariah we mean the classic concept of Islamic governance adapted to address contemporary political, social, economic, and spiritual challenges in a just way, the answer is: Yes.

As a country whose national institutions have been utterly destroyed and almost all threads that once wove its society together have been unraveled, Islam is the only thread that remains intact. Therefore, adopting Shariah as a set of rules, regulations, and values to govern Somalia is not only feasible but perhaps the only sensible means to resuscitate that dying state.

Granted, the name “Shariah” connotes a politically radioactive concept in the West and that there are those who believe that Shariah and governance are mutually exclusive; however, that is hardly a fair estimation of this profoundly misconstrued system. [One might gain a broader perspective of this concept by reading Noah Feldman of Harvard’s article “Why Shariah?” published by N.Y. Times March 16, 2008]

The Somali people are desperate for a government and indeed a system of governance (any for that matter) that they can invest their trust in; a system that protects them against injustices and guards their God-given right to life, to own property, to enjoy basic freedoms and to exercise their freewill.

Therefore, President Sharif Sheikh Ahmed and his government would have to identify the most crucial needs of the people.

Granted, in a number of his speeches while visiting the Somali Diaspora in the United States, he highlighted security, humanitarian needs, and capacity building as being his top priorities. While no one would dispute the importance of these three, some question ‘why is peace and reconciliation not part of the top three priorities?’ They argue that there should be an ongoing process that resists any temptation to give up prematurely.

That being said, the model of Shariah that is likely to succeed is the one that genuinely addresses the following categories of needs:

First: Preserving the sanctity of life and the provision of a secure environment in which the average Somali could reach his/her optimum potential. Within this, protecting the lives of civilians and addressing the humanitarian crisis reign high.

Second: Instituting a peace and reconciliation policy that would keep the door open and the peace process in motion.

Third: Protecting individual properties against any abuses including nationalization, and state properties by establishing a transparent system of accountability.

Fourth: Instituting policies that guarantee equality before the law and protect the rights of women and minorities.

Fifth: Protecting individuals from power abuse and preserving individual’s honor by protecting him or her against false accusations, imprisonment, slander, and character assassination.

Sixth: Protecting freedom of assembly, conscience, and thought.

Seventh: Promoting education and protecting the God-given right of the individual citizen to question and scrutinize their leaders by protecting their right to elect their representatives.

Eighth: Enacting policies promoting ethical and moral conduct that, among other things, criminalize favoritism and other corruptions such as bribery and nepotism.

Ninth: Paving the way for the development of independent institutions that, on one hand, ensure a system of checks and balances, and on the other, enhance the overall function of the government.

Tenth: Instituting policies that protect the sovereignty of the nation and promote neighborly coexistence with neighboring states and with the rest of the international community.

President Ahmed must succeed in persuading people to accept the legitimacy of his government and to trust the individuals appointed to exercise that authority. And, in order to achieve that, those entrusted to lead must resort to taking tangible actions that would restore law and order and improve the lives of people. They must do away with the clan-based quota system that by and large appoints incompetent demagogues who neither serve the nation nor the clans in whose name they were appointed. More importantly, they must streamline all the militias led by shrouded warlords who are now considered government allies into a disciplined army that is accountable.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Abukar Arman is a writer who lives in Ohio. His articles and analysis are widely published.