New Outlook on Culture Raises Tunisian Hopes, Fears: New Age Islam's Selection, 10 June 2016
New Age
Islam Edit Bureau
10 June 2016
• New Outlook on Culture Raises Tunisian Hopes, Fears
By Sarah Souli
• Iran: Is It A Nation Or A Cause?
By Dr. Majid Rafizadeh
• Real Path to Stop Iran
Shahriar Kia
• How Muhammad Ali Became a Hero for Turks
By Pinar Tremblay
• Regional Kurdish Party in AKP'S Crosshairs
By Mahmut Bozarslan
• Gaza Attempts to Deal with Beggars
By Rasha Abou Jalal
• Why the Silence on British Special Forces?
By Chris Doyle
• From Russia with Love? For Now, 'It's Complicated'
By Faisal J. Abbas
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
-----
New Outlook on Culture Raises Tunisian Hopes, Fears
By Sarah Souli
June 9, 2016
“No human development can take place without a cultural renaissance, without establishing cultural and sports activities in all regions,” he told the 13,000-strong audience.
Tunisia isn’t lacking in cultural icons. Ibn Khaldun, the founding father of modern sociology, was born there, as was Abdul Qasim al-Shabi, the early 20th-century poet whose “Tyrants of the World” was chanted across Egypt and Tunisia during the 2011 revolutions. Cinema is a particularly bright spot in Tunisian culture these days. In February this year, Tunisians won for Best First Feature and Best Actor at the Berlin International Film Festival for “Inhebbek Hedi.” In 2013, French-Tunisian director Abdellatif Kechiche snagged the top prize at Cannes for “Blue Is the Warmest Color.”
The role of culture has recently taken on increased importance, as several thousand Tunisians have left the country to fight with the Islamic State in Syria and Libya, and terrorist attacks have increased across the country. “We believe that the fight against terrorism begins with the support of culture,” Ennahda spokesman Oussama Sghaier informed Al-Monitor by email.
“Culture is essential,” Karim ben Smail, owner of Ceres Editions, one of Tunisia’s oldest book publishers, told Al-Monitor. “When we sell 10,000 books about our history, I believe we are saving 10,000 kids. The only way to stop losing our youth is through culture. … [It] can save people.”
There are more than 200 cultural centers across Tunisia and 500 festivals each year attracting artists from around the world. The coastal city of Sfax is this year’s Capital of Arab Culture, and “Making Peace,” an international photo exhibition, has been set up along Avenue Bourguiba, the main thoroughfare in downtown Tunis. Young Tunisians are organizing such interactive art events as Dream City and Doolesha, and the island town of Erriadh is covered in more than 300 works of public art.
Contemporary culture — as an institution supported by the government — is, however, struggling in Tunisia. Most related laws are outdated relics from the 1960s that limit the scope of the private sector and civil society in the arts. For decades, under the dictatorships of Habib Bourguiba and Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, the Ministry of Culture — like most other government entities — was viewed by the citizenry as corrupt, opaque and self-serving. Allegations of nepotism, funneled money and misappropriated funds were common.
For example, Michael Jackson performed a concert in Tunisia in 1996 during his HIStory Tour. Jackson donated the proceeds from the concert to 26-26, a government-run “charity” ostensibly focused on supporting vulnerable groups in Tunisia. Ben Ali's government allegedly pocketed more than half the money, according to Mourad Mathari, who works for Scoop, which organizes large-scale concerts and festivals in Tunisia.
Since Ben Ali’s ouster in 2011, there have been some significant changes in the culture sector. Under Article 42 of the country’s new constitution, drafted in 2014, the “right to culture” and the “right to freedom of expression” are both guaranteed. In addition, Ennahda's Sghaier noted, a 12% increase in the Ministry of Culture’s budget was approved in December 2015. It now totals 228 million Tunisian dinars, Culture Minister Sonia M’barek told Al-Monitor. Earlier this year, Tunisia enacted financial transparency laws that will take effect in July, and the Ministry of Culture will be required to release its financial records.
This is all welcome news said M’barek, who is politically unaffiliated. M’barek, a professional singer, previously served as director of the Carthage Festival and also worked in publishing and copyright. She took her current post four months ago, becoming the country’s sixth culture minister since the revolution. Some observers feel that so much turnover reflects the government’s unwillingness to prioritize culture, but M’barek is adamant that her ministry is “a priority.”
She has several ambitious goals for the coming years, including plans to decentralize culture by focusing on disenfranchised governorates, promoting cultural education in schools and creating a “participatory” dialogue between the government and civil society that will bring about innovative, and in M’barek’s words “life-changing,” cultural projects. The result, as she described it, will be an “industry of culture.”
Despite M’barek’s expressed, genuine commitment to supporting the cultural sector, it is the institution of culture led by the government that worries publishers, festival organizers and other members of Tunisia's cultural civil society.
“The activities of the Ministry of Culture … are in direct competition with the private sector, which is the backbone of any future development in the cultural industry,” wrote Mathari, in a letter to the ministry in April. He told Al-Monitor that the government should focus on “infrastructure,” not festival organizing and attracting international artists.
Mathari’s is a sentiment echoed by Noureddine El Ati, who runs L’Etoile du Nord, the only contemporary theatre in Tunisia. “I am militant about a culture of creation,” the theatre director told Al-Monitor. “Without a culture of creation,” continued El Ati, “we cannot have a real democracy.” He believes the government focuses too much on commercializing culture.
M’barek disagreed with El Ati, remarking that Tunisia is a young democracy, and political transitions take time. “I have faith in the future,” she told Al-Monitor. “We are living a historic moment in Tunisia.”
Source: al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/06/tunisian-culture-shift.html
-----
Iran: Is It A Nation Or A Cause?
By Dr. Majid Rafizadeh
10 June 2016
Iran’s fortune shifted when the six world powers (P5+1: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States; plus Germany) and Iranian leaders initiated the nuclear negotiations, then signing the nuclear agreement, which led to the lifting of global sanctions.
As a result, the Islamic Republic continues to be the recipient of significant geopolitical, strategic and economic opportunities and rewards from the global powers. Iranian leaders could, and still can, capitalize on these opportunities granted to them in two different ways.
Respect or resentment?
Simply put, Iranian leaders can use their new status on global stage, their enhanced legitimacy, and the additional revenues they are receiving to invest in enhancing the lives of its citizens, advance the nation’s technological advancements, avoid interfering in other countries’ affairs, avoid the application of provocative and incendiary speeches against other nations, refrain from intimidating other countries by their military power, and attempt to be a respected nation-state in the region and on the global arena similar to other countries such as South Korea and Japan.
With the sanctions being lifted and the continuing implementation of the nuclear agreement, Iranian leaders believe that the trend has changed, they do not need to change their policies, and that they currently enjoy the upper hand in the Middle East
The second direction that the Iranian government can take is to use their elevated status, as well as chances and opportunities – offered by the nuclear agreement and sanctions relief – to project its military power, build more proxies in the region.
It can choose to provoke other nations by its ballistic missile capabilities, issue confrontational, incendiary and irrational statements to antagonize other countries, continue to be an ideological and revolutionary state with a goal toward being respected as the regional superpower at any cost, impose and spread its Shiite Islam on other nations, proclaim itself as the vanguard of Islam and leader of the Musim world, and act as an ideological cause rather than a nation.
In other words, Iran can choose to be respectfully recognized as a regional power without reliance on hard power, or it can impose its ideology and power on other nations and create resentment rather than reverence.
The Revolutionary State
With the sanctions being lifted and the continuing implementation of the nuclear agreement, Iranian leaders believe that the trend has changed, they do not need to change their policies, and that they currently enjoy the upper hand in the Middle East.
Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) felt that their objectives, prophecies, and goals came true. From their perspectives, they have been successful because of their long-time policies, so why should they alter the status quo?
Geopolitically and strategically speaking, the West is suddenly treating the Islamic Republic as an indispensable regional power. Iranian leaders observe how they are being respected on the Western and global diplomatic arenas. Tehran’s image has also being changed as the West and Iran are advertising the Islamic Republic to be a safe place for millions of tourists to visit.
Considering that the Western powers seem to be giving too much credit to Iran’s military in fighting the West’s main enemy – the ISIS – European nations and the US have significantly shifted their foreign policy toward Iran so that they could tactically cooperate with Iran on Middle Eastern conflicts.
But more fundamentally, what has given the Iranian leaders the encouragement to more forcefully, publicly, and provocatively reassert their regional pre-eminence and regional hegemonic ambitions is the global financial freedom. This has given some IRGC leaders the sense that they are the paramount power and an unstoppable force in the region.
In closing, many politicians, scholars and policy analysts hoped that Iran would change its behaviour after the nuclear agreement, and act as a constructive and modern nation-state.
Nevertheless, we should be cautious of conflating, intertwining, and confusing our hopes with scholarly analyses and the concrete reality on the ground. The Iranian government has decided to more forcefully continue acting as an ideological cause rather than a nation.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/2016/06/10/Iran-Is-it-a-nation-or-a-cause-.html
---
Real Path To Stop Iran
Shahriar Kia
10 June 2016
From day one, back in February 1979, when the current regime in Iran emerged and rose to power, the mullah establishment sought to violently usurp its rule on the country through a domestic crackdown, while in a parallel action, began to meddle in the affairs of neighboring countries while expanding terrorism abroad. Understanding immediately, the lethal potential of provoking the ongoing Shiite-Sunni divide and incongruity, Iran launched its lethal drive of tenacious interference in the affairs of neighboring countries, in an all-out bid to gain influence among members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, and it was during this divisive drive, the mullahs blatantly sought a de facto foothold in the organization.
Trekking down this road for nearly four decades and bringing about a multitude of deaths and scores of horrific tales of misery along the way, through an endless list of terror attacks and its support of foreign wars, Iran has established a web of terrorist-exporting entities and proxy groups, all of which are subordinated to its Revolutionary Guards Quds Force, a military unit dealing exclusively with conflicts in foreign lands to bolster the regime’s efforts in exporting revolution.
This group of proxies, working under the umbrella of the Quds Force, is presently fomenting mayhem in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Kuwait, Bahrain and at times, Saudi Arabia, a country that since the inception of the Iranian regime has been the mullahs’ regional arch rival. What can be done to reverse this now is a legitimate question.
The violent approach adopted by Iranian mullahs with regard to the Middle East and the Arab World, makes it vital for the foundation of a coalition of Islamic countries spearheaded by Riyadh to counteract the threat of Iran. An undeniable necessity for such a force right now, lies in the fact that every member of the international community — especially those residing in the flashpoint region of the Middle East — must learn to respect the territorial sovereignty and integrity of their fellow nations. To realize this objective, states of the region have gone to the limits to establish cordial and friendly relations with the Iranian people, and have shown utmost patience with the constantly menacing leadership of the Iranian regime. Unfortunately, experience has shown that Tehran couldn’t care less about such an outreach of diplomacy, and has actually surged forward in its program of interference, taking the utmost advantage of the methodology of mediation embraced by its neighbours, to carry out subversive action from the shadows.
The US government has constantly raised the fact that Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism, procuring a wide array of arms, funds, intelligence, safe harbour and logistical support to terrorist groups, the Clarion Project cited sources in an in-depth report on Iran’s tenacious support for terrorism.
After years of wars, in which Iran has supported, trained and radicalized terrorists — such as the Lebanese Hezbollah — and meddled in the internal affairs of as many nations as possible, the region has been incapable of establishing a joint response. But with Iran’s ongoing tactic of destabilization continuing to be a menace, the Middle East and the Islamic world has painfully come to learn that evicting the mullahs’ reach from all countries has now become a fundamental necessity, and a vital first step in realizing peace, stability and security in this corner of the globe.
This goal can only be realized through the achievement of both unity and cooperation of engaging Arab states, prepared to put together an organized alternative force that is willing to stand against the religious fascism ruling Iran. Such an entity would need to have at its helm a powerful leadership, which would enable it to put forward an ongoing plan to counteract Iran’s program of expansionism, and where necessary, would feature a code of conduct precisely resembling that of the mullahs themselves, a code which would have to endure a difficult and complex struggle against a Machiavellian opponent, which over the years has been characterized as being politically shrewd in its use of duplicity and bad faith. This opposing movement must be armed with a modern, tolerant and prosperous sentiment of the Muslim faith, in the view of fighting terrorism under the full mantra of Islam.
The Iranian opposition, symbolized in Maryam Rajavi and the National Council of Resistance of Iran umbrella entity of many Iranian dissident groups, can be the very ally needed to effectuate an end to the agonies caused by the mullahs in Iran. The issue at hand is clear. The solution is in reach. In contrast to previous approaches, the Arab World led by Saudi Arabia has assumed a more independent and robust attitude toward Iran’s temperament of meddling and animosity toward the outside world, and its outrageous belief in its calling to dominate all. But what is now needed is a silver bullet and a final nail in the mullahs’ coffin.
Since its creation, the mullahs’ regime has deviously misused Islam to pursue its own objectives and cloak deceitful plots for the region.
Source: arabnews.com/node/937141/columns
-----
How Muhammad Ali Became a Hero for Turks
By Pinar Tremblay
June 9, 2016
An elderly Islamic scholar who asked to remain anonymous told Al-Monitor, “We all grew up watching Muhammad Ali on the black and white screens in the early '70s. Due to the time difference [between Turkey and the United States], we would have to wake up around 3 a.m. In my neighbourhood, we were the only family who owned a television. My father did not enjoy sports, let alone boxing, because he was an imam. But he loved Ali. We would invite as many neighbours as we could fit into our living room and raise the television high up on the table. Everyone would pray quietly for Ali. Then before the tea was served, he would knock his opponent down with an amazing TKO. We would all cheer; praise God for this moment of joy. When Erbakan and other Islamists met him, and he hugged Erbakan, I knew we would overcome our hardships. Those were the days when Islamists were the dark black Turks, ostracized and belittled. Muhammad Ali’s punches and his embrace of Islam gave us hope and pride.”
Indeed, Erbakan must have been touched by Ali’s charm so much so that in 1979 he named his only son Muhammad Ali Fatih. On June 3, after battling Parkinson’s disease for decades, Ali passed away in Phoenix, Arizona.
When the news of Ali's death made the headlines in Turkey, there was an interesting ripple effect on social media. Secularists, ultranationalists and of course Islamists in all sections of the media expressed their condolences. Eksisozluk, a popular public information sharing network that already had 28 pages of entries under Ali’s name, added another 35 pages within four days of his death.
Murat Ozer, chairman of the nongovernmental organization Imkander, succinctly summarized it by saying, “The death of Muhammad Ali in the world of Twitter brought together left, right and Islamists — all the sections. That means we share a common value.” Indeed that was precisely the case with hundreds of tweets pouring in from all ideological, religious, ethnic and political divides of the country. Ali, an American boxing icon, became an uncontested hero for the Turks.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan provided a heartfelt condolence message on June 4, calling the late boxer “a genuine Muslim.” Erdogan did not miss the opportunity to take a jab at the United States, saying, “Only 50 years ago, the country that aims to establish the world order was labelling people second-class citizens exclusively due to their skin colour.” Then Erdogan praised Ali for his struggle against racism in the United States. His speech focused on Ali’s conversion to Islam and resilience as a conscientious objector against the Vietnam War.
Erdogan’s words created strong criticism in public. Several comments on social media emphasized the hypocrisy in Erdogan’s praise for Ali.
One tweet read, “The people who would lynch me had I said 'Kurds did not do anything to me, why would I join the [Turkish] army?' are praising Ali [for his stand against the Vietnam War].”
Another tweet read, “AKP’s spokesperson, Numan Kurtulmus, praised Muhammad Ali for his argument. 'They did not do anything to me' against the Vietnam War. What if someone [from Turkey] refuses to go to war in Nusaybin?”
Despite ridicule of Erdogan’s mendacity, the majority of the Turkish population was united in mourning Ali.
Considering the fact that anti-Americanism has been persistently high in Turkey in the last decade, it is quite impressive for Turks to place an American athlete on a pedestal.
It was impressive to see calls on social media for a funeral prayer in absentia to honour Ali in Turkey. Several Ali interviews, with Turkish subtitles, circulated, and there was almost no news outlet that did not publish a number of famous Ali quotes and unforgettable matches of Ali's, celebrating his life. Details of his funeral and even a biography of Imam Zaid Shakir, who would be leading the Janaza — the Muslim prayer service for death — were published on Thursday in the mainstream Turkish media.
Yet, the tide turned and Ali’s funeral became indeed a strong point of rift after June 6 when Erdogan announced he would attend the funeral and give a eulogy along with former US President Bill Clinton and King Abdullah of Jordan. Critics of Erdogan started questioning what Erdogan would say at the funeral, and in social media people commented, “The man who does not attend the funerals of martyrs in his own country is attending Muhammad Ali’s funeral to get more votes.”
While people were wondering what exactly Erdogan would say, on June 7 the situation became even more complicated. Ali’s family had asked Erdogan and King Abdullah not to deliver speeches. Many foreign news outlets reported the news with a touch of snide, while Turkish media was divided. While those critical of Erdogan emphasized that Ali’s family had asked Erdogan not to speak, pro-AKP media ignored the cancellation and just reported the announcement from the presidential office about Erdogan’s travel plans.
Yet, pro-government media failed to contain the ridicule Erdogan faced about the cancellation of the speech. For example, Brazilian cartoonist Carlos Latuff drew a cartoon where Ali throws a boxing glove from his coffin to an Erdogan figure who is giving a eulogy — the caption reads, “Not in my name, dictator.” In addition, an online petition was initiated asking the Ali family not to let Erdogan speak at the funeral and even not to let him come to Louisville.
Social media users focused on what kind of unique counterattack Erdogan can engage in during the funeral since his name was taken off the speaker list; some fantasized whether or not he would be arrested upon arrival in the United States. Another heated debate that generated several contributions was based on another funeral attendee, rumored to be none other than Fethullah Gulen, an elderly cleric who resides in the United States.
Social media users engaged in bets on who will win if Erdogan and Gulen were to battle, who would have more bodyguards and what the United States would do to handle Erdogan’s rowdy security details.
Unfortunately and unexpectedly, Ali’s funeral has become a mirror of domestic Turkish politics. Ali remains a hero for the different sections of Turkish society for his ability to stand tall against unjust policies of his own government. His personal sacrifices to battle racism, inequality and Islamophobia in his youth have bestowed Ali with rewards later in life. Yet, Erdogan’s attempt to capitalize on his death to reincarnate his image as the leader of the Muslim world has failed.
On the evening of June 8, prior to his US trip, Erdogan gave a speech that resembled a passionate eulogy for the late boxer. Erdogan told the press he was present in 1976 when Erbakan hosted Ali in Istanbul. He added, “Ali was punching for those suffering. He was [symbolically] the punch of the victims.” In 1976, Erdogan and his base were the victims for whom Ali meant hope. Forty years later, it seems Ali delivered a strong punch from the grave against Erdogan’s international credibility.
Source: al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/06/turkey-united-states-mohammed-ali-funeral-erdogan.html
----
Regional Kurdish Party in AKP'S Crosshairs
By Mahmut Bozarslan
June 9, 2016
State prosecutors leapt into action when President Recep Tayyip Erdogan reacted to the self-rule declaration with, “They will pay the price.” Judicial investigations and police action against the declaration were immediate. In Sirnak, 10 locations including the residences of the DBP chairman and other party officials were raided. One member of the municipal council and two DBP officials were detained. In Yuksekova, in simultaneous raids at 15 locations, eight people were detained on charges of attempting to undermine the constitutional order. In similar operations, the DBP co-mayors of Sur and Silvan and many party members were rounded up.
Military operations targeting trenches and barricades in towns followed. In parallel, judicial processes were initiated against the DBP. Those who declared self-rule were detained and many were arrested. Charges were brought against rank-and-file party members, members of municipal councils and 21 mayors.
In time, the operations extended to the upper levels of the DBP, including its co-chair Kamuran Yuksek, who had become well-known after accompanying the co-chair of the Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP), Selahattin Demirtas, to Moscow and visited the United States and Britain. Yuksek had been in prosecutors' crosshairs ever since. Summoned several times to give depositions, Yuksek was detained on May 10. Although his press statements were cited as the cause, he was detained on charges of membership in an armed terror organization.
There has been much speculation about why the DBP — whose 21 mayors and about 50 regular members were detained with another 100 summoned to court — and its co-chair were targeted by the state.
According to a DBP Executive Council member, Yuksek’s adviser Ramazan Tunc, there is three reasons. He listed them to Al-Monitor: “The first reason is that our party, which participated in the 2014 local elections, won 106 mayoralties in heavily Kurdish provinces with the slogan ‘to ensure identity through self-government.’ The DBP is a party that aims at decentralization and handing over local administrations to locally elected people because we are a party that advocates decentralization, a party that promotes collective decision-making against one-man administrations and wants to empower local authorities. Because we have the strength to do all this, the totalitarian structure is attacking us. The second reason is the changes and transformation because of changes in the Middle East. During the Syrian civil war, Rojava [Syrian] Kurds opted for a cantonal system and a North Syria Federation that were received favorably by the international public. This prompted Turkey to support even [Islamic State] gangs to prevent the Kurds from making any gains. This generated deep resentment among the Kurds and led to the Kobani disturbances on Oct. 6-8 when people took to the streets. This was followed by state attacks against 13 towns. The third and last reason is the fourth extraordinary DBP congress with the theme of restructuring the party. The government sent our leader Kamuran Yuksek to prison to prevent such restructuring.”
Mehmet Kaya, chairman of the board of Dicle University's Social Research Center in Diyarbakir, said the targeting of Yuksek is a result of security policies. Kaya told Al-Monitor that alongside Yuksek, the entire gamut of Kurdish politics are in the state’s crosshairs. “Because of clashes in the region, the DBP is becoming a major target. There are two primary political arenas in Turkey: the national assembly and local administrations. The HDP provides Kurdish representation in the national parliament, while the DBP is the backbone of local politics. Although the initial declaration of self-overnment was made by the Democratic Society Congress, the DBP has been more active in declarations of democratic autonomy,” he said.
Kaya added that the presidential aspirations of the ruling Justice and Developmet Party (AKP) are also beind Yuksek's targeting. “I don’t believe the operations are only about Yuksek’s statements. All Kurdish political actors expressed similar views. But you have to understand that in Kurdish politics, Selahattin Demirtas and Kamuran Yuksek are major names with followers. They are two key actors who defend democratic autonomy fervently. For the AKP to realize its presidential aspirations it needs to get most of the nationalist votes. To that end, they have to manipulate the sentiments of those voters. That's why they don’t go after rank-and-file members but the leaders of the HDP and the DBP. This is what the AKP is trying to do by detaining Yuksek.”
On his recent visit to Diyarbakir, new Prime Minister Binali Yildirim accused the metropolitan municipality run by the DBP of transferring funds to the PKK and said they will be asked for an account. The pressure on the DBP will continue.
Source: al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/06/turkey-kurds-democratic-region-party-government-crosshair.html
-----
Gaza Attempts to Deal with Beggars
By Rasha Abou Jalal
June 9, 2016
On May 24, the director of Legal and Regulatory Affairs of the General Investigation Department of the Palestinian police in the Gaza Strip, Imad Harb, announced in a press statement to Safa Press Agency the arrest of 72 beggars, including 42 children in the streets of Gaza. The arrests were part of the campaign launched May 8 by the Ministry of Social Affairs in Gaza in cooperation with the Palestinian police and the Ministry of Culture to fight begging and arrest beggars in Gaza’s streets.
Harb said in his statement that the problem of beggars is being addressed by making them sign pledges not to return to the streets after their arrest. In case the beggar returns to panhandling, the necessary legal measures will be taken for violation of Article 193 of the 1936 Palestinian Penal Code. According to this article, begging is an illegitimate source of income, and beggars are punished with a one-month prison sentence the first time they are caught and a one-year sentence the second time.
However, this campaign has sparked controversy in the Palestinian street, as some questioned its effectiveness in light of the poor living conditions and the government’s failure to address its causes, namely the high poverty and unemployment rates.
Meanwhile, some believe that this campaign is important given that there are panhandlers who are not in need and who have just opted for begging to make money.
According to statistics from the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics published Feb. 11, the unemployment rate in the Gaza Strip reached 38.4% during the fourth quarter of 2015, as opposed to 18.7% in the West Bank during the same period.
Yousef Ibrahim, the undersecretary of the Ministry of Social Affairs in the Gaza Strip, told Al-Monitor, “Begging is a phenomenon rejected by society. It does not emanate from poor economic conditions, but is motivated by the desire to illegally acquire wealth.”
He added, “This is why we launched the anti-begging campaign and are arresting beggars with the aim of bringing them to the probation officer in the ministry, who in turn examines the extent of their need to receive aid. Those who are deemed in need of assistance have their names added to the financial assistance list of the ministry and they are asked to sign a pledge not to return to begging. In case they do return to begging, they are held legally accountable.
“Those who are not in need of financial assistance are not included on the list of financial aid and only sign a pledge not to return to begging. In case they do return to begging, they are arrested, tried and imprisoned in Ansar prison. The children are transferred to Al-Rabih Association that cares for juveniles under the age of 18.”
Ibrahim said that his ministry is granting financial and in-kind periodic assistance to about 76,000 poor families in Gaza. Each family receives one payment every three months. The payment ranges between 700 and 1,800 shekels ($185-$475), depending on the number of members in a family.
According to Ibrahim, the main criterion to give families periodic financial assistance depends on the lack of income or support. The ministry also grants financial aid to marginalised and weak social groups that do not have a source of income, such as widows, divorced women and the elderly.
Although the campaign was launched more than a month ago, panhandlers are still widely present in Gaza’s main streets, such as Rammal Street where pedestrians often are asked for money.
Al-Monitor met one of the beggars who had been detained as part of the anti-begging campaign. Umm Khalid, 38, was released after a pledge not to return to begging. Yet, she was forced to continue asking strangers for money.
Umm Khalid, who begs in the streets wearing a veil covering her face, said, “According to the police I'm not in need, and I only opted for begging to make money. But when I asked them to offer me a job, they did not respond and asked me to sign a pledge promising that I would not return to begging or else I would be arrested and imprisoned.”
She explained that her husband has been unemployed for about seven years after being injured in a car accident. Because he is bedridden and can't work, Umm Khalid was forced to beg in the streets to provide for her family of six.
She said neither the police nor the Ministry of Social Affairs promised to grant financial assistance within the framework of the ministry’s relief programs for poor families. “Had I been getting financial aid, I would not have had to beg every day,” she said. “The Ministry of Social Affairs does not think my family is poor because one of my children who is 18 works at a car repair shop. He earns 350 shekels [$95] per month. But this is barely enough to pay for our food for 10 days."
Children are found begging on the streets of Gaza, too. Passers-by are sometimes harassed by child beggars who block the way of especially women and female college students and ask for money. If no money is offered, the children start harassing the pedestrians, either verbally or by throwing sand at them.
Khalil, 12, and his brother Fayez, 10, wait at the gate of the Bank of Palestine in central Gaza City, to beg customers leaving the bank for money.
“My father lost his job after Israel destroyed the factories during the recent war on Gaza in 2014, and he severely beats us if we return to the house with less than 40 shekels [$10] a day. This is why our actions may become hostile toward passers-by after the sun has set and we haven't collected that amount yet,” Khalil told Al-Monitor.
Khalil heard about the anti-begging campaign on the radio while begging for money in one of the popular cafes. “I am not afraid of this campaign, but I'm trying to escape the police for fear of arrest,” he said.
However, his brother Fayez wishes to be arrested by the police. “If I get arrested by the police, they would start paying a certain amount to my family, as announced by those in charge of the campaign — then I would be able to stop begging and selling chewing gum in the streets.”
Legal expert Salah Abdel Ati said that the 1936 Penal Code is outdated and is not relevant to the current developments in the Gaza Strip, stressing the need to provide beggars with economic and social guarantees.
Abdel Ati told Al-Monitor, “We must fight the causes behind begging before fighting the phenomenon itself. This phenomenon is mainly driven by high poverty and unemployment rates and can be prevented by including beggars on the lists of beneficiaries of the programs of [the Ministry of] Social Affairs as well as helping them financially by providing them with job opportunities.”
Derdah al-Shaer, a professor of sociology at Al-Aqsa University in Gaza, agrees with Abdel Ati and told Al-Monitor that the phenomenon of begging should be fought through the provision of job opportunities and the inclusion of beggars in different local relief programs.
“As long as the problem of unemployment remains unsolved, this phenomenon cannot be eradicated,” he said.
Source: al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/06/gaza-beggars-arrest-campaign-financial-aid.html
-----
Why the Silence On British Special Forces?
By Chris Doyle
9 June 2016
As far as the British public knows, British Special Forces are not fighting in Syria, Libya, Iraq or Yemen. No ground troops are involved, they are told. Not so, according to reports that have now exposed Special Forces fighting in all these countries. The Times newspaper reported on June 6 that British Special Forces have frequently crossed from Jordan into Syria to assist the New Syria Army to rebuild a camp at Tanf.
In Libya, Special Forces destroyed two suicide vehicles in Misrata. In March, Jordan’s King Abdallah briefed the US Congress that British Special Forces had been operating in Libya since the start of the year. Vice News reported in April on covert British anti-terror operations in Yemen. This is only what the media have flushed out - who knows how extensive such operations are and have been?
On Dec. 2, 2015, British Prime Minister David Cameron sought parliamentary approval to extend combat operations against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) into Syria as well as Iraq.
In doing so, he made clear that “the government won’t deploy UK troops in ground combat operations.” He said: “The argument was made to us by the Iraqi government that the presence of Western ground troops can be a radicalizing force and can be counterproductive, and that’s our view.”
When to use force is one of the prickliest issues confronting political leaders. Nowhere has this been more the case than in Britain, not least since the infamous decision to back the ill-judged war on Iraq in 2003. The ghosts of that decision hang over British politics. One of Cameron’s most painful political defeats was the parliamentary vote in 2013 on using force in Syria following the use of chemical weapons.
The deployment of Special Forces is hardly a shock. French Special Forces are also reportedly operating in Libya. The United States at least admits it is using such forces, and President Barack Obama announced an additional deployment of 250 US special forces to Syria in April, a six-fold increase. Some of these arrived in Syria only this week.
It is time to be more honest and ditch the blanket “no comment” farce. Special Forces are used, they have a role, and it is pointless to deny it, but they should not be above the law
Concerns
Special Forces are a vital component in taking down groups such as ISIS. This is no doubt why Cameron pledged an extra £2 billion ($2.89 billion) for Special Forces. Their specialized talents have been used in many conflict theatres against Al-Qaeda and ISIS. However, many are concerned that Special Forces are now being used to do conventional military tasks because politically, the use of standard military forces is too sensitive.
Their use is seen by critics as a bypass around the need for parliamentary approval. The long-standing British convention is that the government never comments on the use of Special Forces. This is very convenient if you do not like parliamentary scrutiny about the purpose and goals of such operations, their effectiveness, frequency, scale or legality.
Human rights groups can be swatted away on this basis too. On what grounds can Special Forces kill in other countries, not least where they have not been invited, as is the case in Syria and Libya?
It has the hallmarks of other tricks and euphemisms to sidestep legal obligations - the use of drones to carry out what are effectively assassinations; the use of the term “enemy or unlawful combatant” rather than “prisoner of war” to avoid Geneva Convention obligations, or “enhanced or coercive interrogation” instead of “torture.”
Last July, British pilots participated in military operations in Syria without parliamentary approval. The escape clause was that the pilots were embedded with US forces.
Another view is that if the government is willing to deploy special forces, why not commit conventional ground troops, which the United States, Britain and France all admit are needed given the lack of a viable anti-ISIS force on the ground in Syria? There were the exaggerated claims made in December of up to 70,000 Syrian opposition forces who could take on ISIS - nothing close to these numbers have engaged the group in the field.
The answer is that they know it is too risky, and prefer using Special Forces where there is no debate on the end goal and whether it is achievable. Special Forces can be used without ministers having to answer awkward questions in public. Full-scale Western troop deployments are deemed too risky, perhaps wisely.
It is time to be more honest and ditch the blanket “no comment” farce. Special Forces are used, they have a role, and it is pointless to deny it, but they should not be above the law. Politicians have enough of a trust deficit as it is.
Operational matters need not be discussed, but the strategic goals should be, not least when there still appears to be no strategy, just the broad goal of wiping out ISIS. Is it not time for the British authorities to show more transparency and open this issue for proper debate? It should not be mission creep in the shadows in a secret war with no end.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/2016/06/09/Why-the-silence-on-special-forces-.html
-----
From Russia with Love? For Now, 'It's Complicated'
By Faisal J. Abbas
9 June 2016
I write this from my hotel room overseeing the Russian Foreign Ministry’s iconic main building, a gigantic Stalinist-style skyscraper that was built as one of Moscow’s famous “Seven Sisters” between 1947 and 1953. Having witnessed the rise and fall of the Soviet empire, the building has recently re-emerged as a global power broker, particularly when it comes to the Middle East.
However, for an outsider, Moscow’s foreign policy seems intensely confusing to say the least. For instance, Russia remains the only power in the world (aside from Iran) that backs Syria’s dictatorship, a brutal regime that justifies its actions by claiming it is a victim of its anti-Israeli, anti-American position.
Yet this Russian support did not prevent Moscow from giving a warm welcome recently to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was visiting to mark the 25th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the two countries. This comes just weeks after announcing that Israel does not intend to ever return the Golan Heights - which it seized in 1967 - to Syria.
Another oxymoron, in which Russia may be similar to many Middle Eastern countries, is the awkward love / hate relationship with the United States. I must admit that upon visiting Moscow for the first time, the sight of the golden arches of McDonalds and other popular US brands almost everywhere was a real shocker.
It is not only Russia’s history of communism that makes these sights awkward. It is the current, intense local media coverage of bilateral relations, which makes one feel like the two nations are still at war. Asked about Moscow’s peculiar foreign policy, some local journalists and political analysts are full of praise, adding that it is pragmatism at its very best and ensures Russian interests are always served.
However, one expert candidly said these “Cold War tactics” ensured that people rally behind the flag and do not pay attention to the worsening economy since the collapse of the rubble in 2014.
The Dispute over Syria
A major battleground of this new Cold War is Syria, where Moscow and Washington - along with most Gulf States - back opposing sides. Ironically, despite Russia’s military involvement, the average citizens you meet here are not able to locate Damascus on a map, let alone distinguish between regime loyalists, Al-Nusra and ISIS.
However, not everyone here is as detached. Almost a year ago, Russia’s Orthodox Church controversially described Moscow’s involvement in Syria as a “holy war,” though it later claimed its position was distorted by the media.
Experts I spoke to say Russia’s backing of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a matter of principle, citing Moscow’s concern for global stability and a lack of desire to see the Libyan debacle (for which they blame US involvement) being repeated in Syria.
If this is the case, one could safely deduce that Moscow would have no issue with Assad’s removal if it is done in a way that preserves Syria, or what is left of it. At least this is what should be understood from the recent comments of the Foreign Ministry’s official spokesperson Maria Zakharova. In March, she told the local Sputnik News agency that Russia backs a legitimate authority in Syria, “not Assad personally.”
This was perceived as a positive sign by many in the Syrian opposition and among their Gulf backers. However, there seems to be conflicting views and more than one say in Moscow when it comes to this issue. Some advisors may feel this would be too much of a compromise, and a victory to the US-backed side. As such, more senior Russian officials have made it clear that it they won't force Assad to leave, particularly if he is reelected by his people (or what remains of them).
Gulf States oppose any solution that does not guarantee the removal of the Iran-backed Assad, particularly following their massive financial, military and - most importantly - personal investment in this matter since 2011.
Yet things are changing, and there is a new, dynamic government in Saudi Arabia that is eager to move things forward. While Riyadh continues to maintain its position that Assad should be removed either by diplomatic or military means, we have seen unprecedented determination not to allow differences with Moscow on this matter to affect overall relations.
Close cooperation between Riyadh and Moscow cannot but be helpful, particularly when it comes to regional and oil-market stability. Most recently, Russia has proposed to mediate between the Saudis and Iranians.
Close cooperation between Riyadh and Moscow cannot but be helpful, particularly when it comes to regional and oil-market stability
Though neither Tehran nor Riyadh has jumped on the offer, the mere fact that Moscow made such a proposal is interesting. For its part, Saudi Arabia has repeatedly maintained that it wants good relations with Iran, but that it must stop meddling in its neighbors’ internal affairs.
Russia also seems ready to play a bigger role in Israeli-Palestinian talks. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reportedly brought up the Arab Peace Initiative during Netanyahu’s recent visit. However, without reconciliation between Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah, Israel will always have an excuse to stay away from the negotiating table.
I leave Moscow with a much better grasp of its positions. However, given that I was there to participate in a media forum, I cannot but say that signing bilateral media agreements with the likes of the discredited Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) will not help clarify Russia’s positions in the Middle East.
Regardless of whether it can convince the Arab street of its stance, Moscow would benefit much more from a stronger presence on mainstream and credible Arabic media outlets. This cannot be achieved by partnering with a state-owned news agency that has, in the midst of a civil war, reported that tourism is on the rise in Syria. The only thing on the rise in the country is terrorism; it is only by closer cooperation with the Gulf that this can be stopped.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/2016/06/09/From-Russia-there-could-be-love-but-for-now-it-s-complicated-.html
URL: https://newageislam.com/middle-east-press/new-outlook-culture-raises-tunisian/d/107585