Posted on

Isreal’s worst nightmare: a Palestinian democracy

Israel’s worst nightmare: a Palestinian democracy
Published in The Canberra Times, 7 October 2011
http://bit.ly/snyr42

How ironic that the bastion of freedom is accused of bullying within the United Nations Security Council while the Palestinian statehood bid is deliberated. The United States can use its status as the world’s sole superpower to yield democracy, peace and justice. Or it can abuse its super power to sustain the suffering of Palestinians, and relegate itself to the last pro-Israel bastion. Even former US president Bill Clinton recently conceded that ”the US Congress is the most pro-Israel parliamentary body in the world”.

In order to pass, the Security Council resolution for full Palestinian membership requires at least nine votes in favour and no vetoes from the five permanent members. With eight members pledging an affirmative vote, pressure is mounting on three undecided members, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia and Portugal.

To protect the US from accusations of (ab)using its veto power, it is expected that the three undecided members would be asked to abstain via carrots and sticks. Thus the US can deflect any blame for a failed bid and simply point to the numbers game. However, how does the Palestinian moral power compare with the US monetary and military power? Already, the US Congress has frozen nearly $US200million in aid for Palestinians that was meant to be released by the end of their (September) financial year ”until the Palestinian statehood issue is sorted out”.

This is one-third of the annual commitment that was earmarked by the Obama Administration for food aid, water administration and health care. Chief spokesman of the Palestinian Authority, Ghassan Khatib, accused the US of ”collective punishment … for going to the United Nations”.

With the US turning the taps off, these ”bullying tactics” have been condemned as shameful. The pro-Israel sponsors such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee invest exorbitant amounts into US politicians and election campaigns, then expect a return on that investment. But they call it lobbying, not bullying.

Surely it must be an abuse of power to witness the standing ovation after the plea by Palestinian President Mahoud Abbas at the UN General Assembly, then dare to deny this rising tide, and deny the Palestinian people their inalienable right to statehood.

The pro-Israel propaganda and Barack Obama’s orations have become inseparable. Israel’s UN ambassador Ron Prosor insisted ”A Palestinian state … will not be achieved [by] imposing things from the outside but only in direct negotiations … There are no short cuts.” This is virtually Obama’s speech verbatim. How ironic that the US – the antithesis of dictatorships – is being dictated to and even bullied.

How can you tell Palestinians who have waited since the dishonoured 1947 Partition Plan that there are no short cuts? How can you corner a strangled leadership with no army and no state to deal directly with their bully? Why did Israel not need the blessing of Palestine when it sort statehood? How can you pretend that this is a civil dispute between two equal neighbours, rather than a criminal catastrophe that requires the intervention of the international criminal court?

If the US applies the handbrake to this historic bid, it may inadvertently fuel a new anti-bully revolution – against the US whose non-neutrality as peace broker has been exposed, or against Israel as the occupation force seeking a Jewish state through ethnic cleansing and terrorist tactics, but also against the

Palestinian Authority itself as unrepresentative and reflecting the business elite of an oppressed people.
Abbas has couched his statehood bid within the Arab Spring narrative by claiming that ”the time has come also for the Palestinian Spring”. But voices of Palestinian dissent are demanding democracy and consultation within both the Palestine Liberation Organisation and the Palestinian Authority.

He should be careful what he wishes for, as the Palestinian youth may be inspired by neighbouring Arab countries to topple his leadership. Like their Arab peers, these educated and alienated youth can deploy social media and mobilise a popular mass movement. They may appeal directly to the ”court of global public opinion” rather than the UN. The youth may transcend the Fatah-Hamas schism and chant ”one person, one vote”, using non-violent resistance and civil disobedience. Globally, the BDS campaign may gain greater momentum. They may see that the truth ”on the ground” since 1967 has been a ”one state solution” with its occupied annexes. They may see the most viable future solution is one secular state that becomes a true democracy with equal citizens.

Even the grandson of a Zionist signatory to the 1948 Israeli Declaration of Independence, Miko Peled, advocated this secular democracy vision during his recent speaking tour in Australia: ”The people of Egypt remind us that nothing is impossible.”

If the Palestinian statehood bid fails, the third and non-violent intifada may leap forward and a secular democracy where Palestinians are the majority may be Israel’s worst nightmare.

Posted on

Sweet victory, without the war

Sweet victory, without the war
Published in The Age, 18 August 2011
http://bit.ly/qFKnEe

View PDF

Syrians care more about overdue policy reform than ousting their president.

Do you want to eat the grapes, or to kill the vineyard’s guard? This rhetorical Arabic question addresses a disconnect between the means and the end. It is an apt metaphor for Syria’s crossroads and future.

Is the end game to dethrone yet another Arab leader, or ensure that its citizens gain human rights?

We already know from Iraq that toppling the leader of a pluralistic secular state unleashes sectarian militias, tribal warfare and al-Qaeda insurgents competing for control in a state that has become dangerously chaotic.

Do we wish the same anarchy for the Syrian people?

The resulting Iraqi parliament is created on the basis of delicate ethno-sectarian quotas. The ongoing human cost of this regime change has been horrific, with desperate asylum seekers floating to our shores and 1.4 million seeking refuge in Syria – a secular ”sanctuary”. Apart from Iraqis, Syria has been a safe haven to many minority groups such as Jews, Kurds, Ismailis, Druze, Palestinians and Christians.

Syria has the potential to change its policies without removing its president. Unlike Tunisia, Egypt and Libya – where presidents were unwilling and unable to implement dialogue and reform – Syria’s Bashar al-Assad has ratified his reform package, but will implement it only if the ”chaos” subsides, creating a vicious circle.

Eleven years after he inherited the presidency and the old guard of the Socialist Arab Baath Party, the pro-democracy demonstrations in Syria may have given Assad impetus to revisit his original reform agenda.
However, the president needs to redress the blatant disconnect between his brutal suppression of demonstrations and his rhetoric.

The escalating fatalities and arrests give unarmed civilians the ammunition to join the armed struggle. If the president is serious about his overdue reforms, including ”regulated peaceful protests”, he could let the protest voices be heard rather than hidden.

The regime’s dilemma is that the armed militia are increasingly, strategically and deliberately intertwined with the unarmed civilians.

The president cannot continue to hide behind a charade of conspiracies that armed saboteurs, extremists, snipers, terrorists and gangs are hiding among the ”protesters who have legitimate demands”. His ban on foreign media has backfired with his promises now dismissed as propaganda, and unverified images from mobile phones and exiles thriving as the official version in Western media.

When speaking to Australians who recently visited Syria, there is a disconnect between our media reports and their experiences, which confirm an overwhelming majority of Syrian citizens do not want their president ousted. They trust him to facilitate the reforms, as a means to an end, regardless of who may be democratically elected in the future.

Too often, media vision and audio put forward as anti-government protests are actually pro-government because Arabic-language interpreters have not been engaged.

Unlike the neat and naive narrative that we would like to believe, the anti-government protesters are not all unarmed pro-democracy civilians. Ironically, Assad’s claims about foreign and armed militia infiltrating the protests have been verified by many Australian witnesses.

The Saudi-supported Salafists are pushing for a theocracy – government by divine guidance or by religious representatives – not a democracy. The militarised insurgents with their urban warfare training are armed and funded – by which countries and for which reasons?

This parallels the recent reports in Egypt where the largely secular revolution has already been hijacked by Salafists calling for an Islamic state, hoisting Saudi flags and intimidating Copts.

With the lessons learnt from Iraq, the UN Security Council must have considered the regime change alternatives and consequences with its double-edged resolutions. While it “condemns the widespread violations of human rights”, it also “stresses that the only solution to the current crisis in Syria is through an inclusive and Syrian-led political process”.

Western leaders should pressure the Syrian president to break the cycle and implement the reforms that articulate the aspirations of his people.

The least violent regime change is the organic evolution rather than bloody revolution. This means trimming the branches and poisoning the roots of the old guard rather than uprooting the entire tree and leaving a big black hole where citizens cave in.

Like all citizens, Syrians are more interested in the policies than the president. Perhaps they can reap the (sweet) grapes of political autonomy without killing the guard.

The end result could be a more robust secular society in the heart of an increasingly sectarian Middle East.

Posted on

Australia cannot sit on Palestinian wall

Australia cannot sit on the Palestine wall
Published on The Drum, ABC Online, 31 August 2011
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2862826.html

View PDF

One plus zero does not equal two. Australia has always advocated bi-partisan support for a two-state solution.

Logically, this means that our vote for Palestinian statehood at the United Nations General Assembly on September 20 should indeed be a no-brainer. With Spain and Belgium now supporting the bid, Palestine is already recognised as a state by 124 countries, so it needs another five votes, or two-thirds majority, to be admitted as the 194th member of the UN.

So why so much frantic lobbying and gnashing of teeth over this simple arithmetic?

Sadly, the vote will have less to do with Palestinian rights and more to do with our domestic politics. In 1948, Australian foreign minister H V Evatt became president of the UN and earned Israel’s ‘undying gratitude’. In 1949, he ‘steered to a vote’ resolution 181 which formally recognised Israel into the ‘family of nations’. Australia was among the first to vote ‘Yes’ to a two-state solution.

If our commitment has integrity, we will soon be able to ‘steer’ another ‘Yes’ vote. But it will more likely be ‘No’ for all the wrong reasons.

First, the incumbent Gillard Government dares not bite the loaded hand that feeds it. Our Prime Minister could not face her friends after all the hospitality they have shown during her Rambam Israel Fellowship in 2005 and her Australia Israel Leadership Forum in 2009. The well-oiled machine of the pro-Israel anti-Palestine lobby has supported her political ascendancy and expect a return on their investment. It is expected these dollar numbers weigh more than the poll numbers, especially in electorates with significant Arab populations.

A Fairfax poll on August 8 showed that 70 per cent of Australians believed that Australia should vote ‘Yes’ for a Palestinian state, so a ‘No’ vote would show a real disconnect with Australians whom she ostensibly represents. Moreover, growing sections of the Australian Jewish community have become vocal in supporting this bid.

Second, the Gillard Government hopes that the US exercises its right of veto at the UNSC to block the bid, and thereby relinquish Australia from this quandary. But despite any veto, the bid may still be taken to the General Assembly for a vote, and we cannot sit on the ‘apartheid’ fence.

Third, the Gillard Government is anxious to prevent isolating or de-legitimising Israel. This is ironic as Israel has succeeded to isolate itself all on its own. By its litany of flagrant breaches of UN resolutions that are all on the public record, Israeli governments have shown contempt for the UN and international laws with impunity. Any other UN member would be deemed rogue, threatened with sanctions or have its UN membership rescinded. By bringing Israel back to the family of nations, and ensuring that laws and agreements are honoured, the family would be re-legitimising Israel as a member under the same laws, not above the law.

Fourth, the Gillard Government does not wish to be associated with ‘extremists’. This is richly ironic as Australia has positioned itself on the fringe of world opinion when it came to voting on Israel. As deputy prime minister, Ms Gillard defended Israel’s ‘right to defend itself’ during Operation Cast Lead, earning Israeli accolades for being ‘alone in sticking by us’. Again, her view was not only out on a limb with international condemnations, but also with the majority of her own population who saw Israel’s hundred-fold overkill in Gaza as ‘not justified’, according to a Ray Morgan national poll in June 2009.

Our extremism was reinforced when we were one of seven countries to vote against a motion at the UN General Assembly on November 30, 2010 which:

Reaffirmed the commitment to the two-state solution of Israel and Palestine… [and] the need for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem.

Apart from four Pacific Island micro-states, the only other countries to vote against this near global consensus was the US and Israel.
Fifth, the Gillard Government prefers negotiations than any UN motion that may lead to anti-Israel sanctions. This view turns a blind eye to the misery that decades of suit-and-tie negotiations have brought to Palestinians.

Since signing the 1993 Oslo accords, settler numbers have doubled. How does one negotiate with a government that has the Bible as a tenancy agreement for a God-given promised land? Despite many brokered agreements, road maps and accords, the plight of Palestinians continues to deteriorate with Gaza under siege while daily territorial expansion grows while we sleep. This swallowing of Palestine is why we rarely see maps in public discourse about the occupation. This despair is also why disillusioned citizens of the world – Palestinians and Jews alike – have resorted to the same non-violent and non-government strategy that has worked to dismantle apartheid in South Africa and British colonised India.

The global boycotts, sanctions and divestments movement hold Israel to account for its broken promises to the United Nations, including the rights of its Palestinian citizens and the right of return of Palestinian refugees.

Sixth, the Gillard Government never wishes to support a state that sponsors terrorism. Yet the collective punishment of Gazans that is wreaking untold civilian deaths is beyond terrorism. While both Hamas and Israel would prefer to see each other vanquished, only one is backed by the world’s sole superpower and can execute this.

Given that Palestinian territories have been reduced to 22 per cent of the historic homeland, and given Israel’s track record of breaching UN resolutions, it would be naïve to believe that Palestinian statehood would suddenly coerce compliance. Palestinians may be cornered into a position of gratitude for statehood, as if they should be content with the title as a trade-off for sacrificing their ‘inalienable rights’.

Exiled Palestinians may be constitutionally cornered to forfeit the PLO’s observer status at the General Assembly, which has represented Palestinian refugees in the Diaspora and their right of return since 1975.

Australia too may be cornered as the time to demonstrate a serious commitment to a two-state solution is now.

Posted on

No Time to abandon ship in Libya

No Time To Abandon Ship In Libya
Published in New Matilda, 30 August 2011
http://newmatilda.com/2011/08/30/no-time-abandon-ship-libya

View PDF

The NATO intervention in Libya has ousted the Gaddafi regime but will the allies expect their dues to be paid in oil, asks Joseph Wakim

While the Libyan ground rebels are now out to sniff out a rat, their aerial allies may soon land for another reason: oil.

When NATO’s mandate expires at the end of September, will they declare mission accomplished and go back home to Europe, pleased that they have rid the Libyans of their delusional despot? I think not. While NATO’s left hand has paid sky-high costs for the military mission, the right hand itches for a fair return on that investment.

The United Nations Security Council was at pains to differentiate the mission in Libya from the ill-fated mission in Iraq.

On 17 March, a more measured Resolution 1973 endorsed Operation Unified Protector in response to the “widespread and systematic attacks … against the civilian population [that] may amount to crimes against humanity”. NATO Member States were “to take all necessary measures … to protect civilians … under threat of attack … while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory”.

The resolution also called for an immediate cease fire, a no-fly zone, blocking the “continuing flows of mercenaries”, an asset freeze on funds, assets and resources “which are owned or controlled … by the Libyan authorities”, and an enforcement of an arms embargo — except the weapons smuggled via Tunisia from fellow Sunni country Qatar to arm the rebels.

Although NATO insisted that it would “always remain impartial” and “not take sides”, the Operation extended its 6500 strikes to non-military targets that may “incite acts of violence” such as satellite dishes, all to hasten regime change.

After all, this operation had cost the eight NATO members an estimated €1 billion at a time of austerity measures in Europe. Access to the oil fields and return on the financial investment was surely urgent.

Why such cynicism about this human rights mission? Because the NATO intervention turns a blind eye to the atrocities committed by other Arab governments, especially in the Gulf States and the Palestinian occupied territories, where those in power are already allies with the world’s sole superpower.

To compound the urgency, NATO failed to condemn the bounty on Gaddafi’s head. The NTC chairman Mustafa Abdel Jalil supported this initiative by businessmen to pay 2 million dinars “for the capture of Gaddafi, dead or alive”. Jalil also offered amnesty to “members of [Gaddafi’s] close circle who kill him or capture him”.

While the iconic image of a beheaded leader may bring rejoicing and relief, this is not what is called for by the UNSC resolution. Instead, it referred the situation to the International Criminal Court, “stressing that those responsible for … attacks targeting the civilian population … must be held to account”.

The foundations and constitutions of a post-Gaddafi Libya should be sealed not with blood but with the ink of trials, testimonies and truth. Surely, there has been enough collaboration between NATO and the NTC to caution against a bloodthirsty finale. Surely, NATO would know that disarming all the trigger-happy rebels may be tough if they become too wedded to their identity in this bloody and ironic revolution against a former revolutionary.

Indeed, it is peculiar that these pro-democracy protestors were labelled rebels since the popular uprising began in Benghazi on 17 February. In no other Arab “spring” has the movement earned this temporary tag, as their rebellion is virtually victorious. While horrific reports are emerging about mass graves for Gaddafi’s prisoners, there are also reports of rebels attacking the homes of civilians and of the mass killing of Gaddafi supporters.

So now the NATO eyes in the sky who navigated and facilitated the regime change plan to land and reap the benefits of their alliance.

Already, Italy has been reassured that prior contracts for oil extraction will be honoured. Germany expects a return on its €100 million in aid. Britain expects recognition for unfreezing Libyan assets that had been blocked by UN sanctions. France is queuing up for its fair share while inviting talks with “friends of Libya” in Paris on 1 September.

But the country who needs the oil revenue most is Libya itself, as oil constituted 95 per cent of its exports when it was producing 1.6 million barrels per day. The new caretakers of this nation need safeguards against the temptation and traps that Iraq fell into when the smell of money attracted new rats that bred on corruption and division.

These safeguards are covered by Resolution 1973 which calls for a panel of “eight experts” to address implementation, non-compliance, benefits, contracts and transactions that emanate from the related resolutions.
NATO, TNC and their cheer squads need to heed the UNSC resolution honourably, not selectively. Let us not repeat the mistakes of history where yesterday’s rebels become today’s allies, then tomorrow’s rogue rats to be trapped.

Posted on

Time has run out for the Arab stroingman

Published in Australian Financial Review, 31 March 2011
http://bit.ly/w1jLRn

Arab strongman

Bil rouh, bil dam, nafdeek ya za’eem!

This chant has echoed from the pro-government rallies across the Arab world, but never from the lips of the revolutionaries. The chant is akin to Long Live the King, although the literal meaning is with our soul, with our blood, we will sacrifice for you oh leader.

It is indeed this (un)dying devotion to one saviour and this investment into one invincible demi-god that needs to be drummed out of the marching movement if a new chapter and indeed new constitutions are to be written in Arab history.

As the masses of genies are freed from their bottles and shake off their shackles, the truth is also unbottled: the stronger the leader, the weaker the citizens. The revolutionaries are not about propping up a strongman, but reminding the world that strength of a society is judged by how it treats its weakest citizens.

The legacy of the ‘strongman’ or za’eem is not peculiar to Arab culture, or the twentieth century. We have seen similar icons in Asia, Russia and Europe and they have earned entire chapters in history books as well as nouns named after them such as Stalinism, Reaganism, Thatcherism and Maoism.

The legacy of the Arab strongman was borne out of desperation, not wisdom. From Biblical stories such as the exodus from Egypt, we know that a population who feels oppressed and deprived needs hope which is too often vested in one man. When that strongman dies or disappoints, then another is quickly elevated and crowned.

I have seen this za’eemism throughout Lebanon and Syria, where banners bearing the faces of these local leaders take up a three storey building. In Australia, the election posters can be wrapped around a light pole. The zai’eem becomes literally larger than life. His every move is escorted by an entourage and sirens bringing both sides of traffic to a standstill, akin to Moses parting the Red Sea. By contrast, Australian MPs catch public transport and rub shoulders with their electorate.

It is ironic that some of the Arab strongmen who are now fending off a revolution were themselves originally revolutionaries or rebels. Muammar Gaddafi joined the Revolutionary Command Council in Libya and in September 1969. He staged a bloodless coup against King Idris, thereby abolishing the monarchy. While Gaddafi may have conquered his foes, who were his friends? While he plotted the exit of a monarch, what plans did he have for his own eventual exit?

The eventual game plan was to hold on to power at all costs, and groom a son to inherit the throne. Thus, yesterday’s hero becomes today’s tyrant, and one strongman was merely replaced by another.

Herein lies the problem with this tribal tradition. The taste of power becomes so addictive that the status quo of emergency rule (such as Algeria, Syria and Libya) is sustained across generations, and opposition voices are silenced by secret police (mukhabarat). The strongman’s fear of losing power actually renders him weak, and ironically creates a climate of mutual fear as his citizens dare not challenge the chief lest he invokes the marshal law.

It takes a genuine strongman to have a succession plan and understand that he is the humble servant of the people, not the reverse. It takes a genuine strongman to declare a successful mission accomplished and having the wisdom to plan succession. It takes a genuine strongman to read the seasonal winds and know when to hand over the baton.

This tradition of revering a life-long strongman was conveniently exploited by Western interests who helped carve up the map of the Middle East in the first place, after the collapse of the Ottoman empire a century ago. The strongman created stability as he contained the tribal and sectarian diversity within his country. The strongman yielded a return on western investments because he arranged to sustain himself for the long haul. The strongman had an insatiable appetite for more power and wealth. The strongman was much easier to manipulate than a democratically elected government, in a region where Israel would claimed to have a monopoly on democracy.

His western benefactors were happy to prop him and pour money into his military machines if the strongman was happy to pour oil into western economies, as was the case with our strongman in Egypt Hosni Mubarak and our strongman in Iraq Saddam Hussein. As we could see in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the poverty of the people and human rights violations never distracted the western friendships.

The revering of a strongman has no place in the revolution or Arab contemporary culture. The young revolutionaries now seek ideals such as freedom, democracy, accountability and human rights, rather than a single-handed savior. Indeed, strongmen such as Gaddafi and Mubarak hail from their grandfathers’ generation. These citizens have seen how the concentrated power of the strongman ultimately causes powerlessness of the people.

This means regular elections that are free and fair, and where various political parties can flourish. These need to be promoted in such a way to transcend tribes, sects and clans, who may have traditionally voted for their own strongman. Among the political parties, it should be expected that there is a Muslim political party (Brotherhood) in a predominantly Muslim state, just as there is a Christian Democratic Party in Australia.

As Marshall law and emergency rule are systematically being dismantled after over forty years, promised in Algeria and Syria, the new constitution needs to etch provisions akin to a Bill of Rights.

The Arab League has its headquarters next to Tahrir Square in Cairo and marks the 60th anniversary of its charter this month. This is both the time and place for the architects of new constitutions to prohibit the strongman and ensure that the next chapter is a za’eem-free zone.

Posted on

Arab Spring turns chilly for some

Brisbane Courier Mail, 29 September 2011

View PDF:

US President Barak Obama’s championing of ‘universal rights’ in his recent speech to the UN General Assembly apparently exempts Palestinians, while his sanctions of ‘those who trample on human rights’ exempts American allies such asIsraelandSaudi Arabia.

These double standards are most evident when he contrastsSyriawithBahrain. Both have used mass violence to control their respective uprisings, yet he has called on the UN’s Security Council to ‘sanction the Syrian regime’ while askingBahrainto ‘pursue meaningful dialogue’ with the main opposition bloc – the Wifaq.

The sultanistkingdomofBahrainheld its elections last weekend, amid more violence and boycotts, andSyriawill hold its first multi-party elections next February, after fulfilling its promised constitutional reforms.

While Obama pledges to ‘serve as a voice for those who have been silenced’, this apparently exempts the mostly Shi’ite population who are oppressed by his King Khalifa inBahrain.

Obama propagates the narrative all the anti government protestors inSyriaare ‘protesting peacefully, standing silently in the streets’. Yet he knows many of them are externally sponsored militia and mercenaries who are armed, trained, funded and imported.

A recently released Wikileaks cable confirmed the US State Department has funnelled $6 million to finance anti-government parties and exiles, as well as an anti-government channel Barada TV.

In the absence of professional media in Syria, the anonymous voices of these exiles and amateur images from mobile phones have had a field day, with their ‘feeds’ too often without checks, translations and context.

We are shown crowds chanting pro-government slogans and carrying pro-government banners (in Arabic) but the voiceover (in English) tells us they are anti-government protests, which is inexcusable propaganda.

Even Al Jazeera TV, operating fromBahrain’s neighbourQatar, is notorious for its pro-Sunni bias.

On May 16, the ABC’s Media Watch exposed a completely falsified report of ‘Syrian troops beating detained protestors’. The footage was later proven to have been shot inLebanon three years ago. There have been CNN reports about 40 babies dying due to power cuts inHama, which was later proven to have happened inEgypt.

While last month’s UNSC resolution condemning Syria’s ‘widespread violations of human rights’ was amplified in Western media, the clause urging ‘all sides to act with utmost restraint, and to refrain from reprisals, including attacks against state institutions’ was muted. Was this because it begs inconvenient questions such as who are ‘all sides’? What ‘attacks against state institutions’?

We do not hear about the mutilation of Syrian soldiers or police, because it begs questions about those ‘protesting peacefully’. We do not hear about the Saudi-sponsored Salafists who are provoking a theocracy not a democracy because it raises questions about another ‘friend’ in theSunniGulf region.

The Arab Spring gave rise to jasmines, but also to parasitic weeds and seeds falling from foreign gardens and taking root.

The first casualty of war may be the truth, but this is not a war and we have a right to know the truth.