Two raids by Israeli Airforce on targets inside Syria within 48 hours of each other throw many questions in the air. Will it let the two-year-old Syrian civil-war spill over border and become a region war as we have seen before when the Israelis get involved? Will it prove Syria’s dictator Bashar Assad’s claim that the rebellion started by protests in 1011 was a wider Israel, American plot to weaken what the Iranians call ‘the regional resistance to Israel and American aggression’? Or will it hasten Assad’s downfall? or will it suck Israel into a wider conflict if, as expected, Iran instructs its allies, Hezbollah in Lebanon to launch attack on Israel as they did in 2006; or perhaps a Hamas in Gaza to launch more rocket attacks on southern Israel forcing the Jewish state to take action in Gaza which would claim civilian lives and trigger waves of protests in Muslim countries?

What is confusing is that while Israelis don’t see the collapse of Assad regime is beneficial to the Jewish state, the two raids came at time when the Syrian regime made considerable military gains on the ground, pushed the rebels back from main highways and reopened the supply rout to its garrisons in the Northern parts. Israeli intelligence sources adamant that targets were arms distant to Lebanese Shia group Hezbollah, which they could use against Israel. Whether by deduction or by observation it wasn’t and still is not in Israel’s interest to see the Assad regime collapses to be replaced by an unknown alternative,  which is very likely to be hostile to Israel.  Israeli intelligence operators and officials, off the record, say so. The pro-Alqaeda hardline Islamists (wanting total destruction of the Jewish state) are becoming the strongest  among Syian’s position group. If in power they won’t hesitate to turn the arsenal left by the regime against Israel.

Rarely do the Israelis act foolishly ( although when they do the fallout is long lived like when, against the advice of his own security chiefs in 1997 Prime Minister  Bi Bi  Netanyahu ordered the assassination of Hamas leader Khalid Mishaal in Jordan  which backfired badly), so hopefully  Mr Netanyahu is getting a good counsel this  time. According to intelligence sources, the first raid  targeted a military convoy distant to army Hizebollah in Lebanon ( cast as terrorist organisation by the US State Department), which must have included missiles similar to those launched by Hezbollah in 2006 against Israeli civilians .   Some unconfirmed reports, but plausible, suggest the Iranians were pressurising Assad to send more of his arsenal of rockets to Hezbollah. Israeli military analysts went on record ( BBC Radio4 Today programme Monday 6 May) to say Assad himself was the last man in Syria who wants to send his missiles to Hezbollah but pressure from Iran (whose support is crucial to his regime survival). gave no choice but to comply, hence the Israelis had to act swiftly

The second attack Saturday night into early hours of Sunday morning  which the Syrians say targeted a military research facilities, I is thought to be a storage of missiles supplied by Iran. Others suggest  the site  might have also contained either chemical weapons or some equipment tat would enable the missiles to modify the head to carry chemical payload.

predictably, Arab and Muslim commentators are using media at their disposal to turn public opinion against Israel. We heard the predictable noise from Arab nationalists, and Iran urging Arab nations to confront Israel, while Arab League Secretary General Nabil el-Arabi prepare to as UN Security Council for a meeting to condemn Israel. Israel will almost certain use the legal argument of article 51 of the UN charter  ( the right to self defence)  to justify the preemeptive strike as protecting her civilians against imminent danger had the missiles reached Hizbollah .

Assad is likely to score high political points among Arab and Muslim populace, and the ever (irrationally) hostile to Israel  Arab and Muslim press commentators.  There will be pressure on the pro-western conservative Arab Gul governments from their people  since they covertly support Assad’s opponents by supplying arms to rebels.

An overwhelming  Deja vu pricked  my sense watching Foreign Secretary William Hague making his statement to the commons about Syria and other matter. Same like reading columnists pontificating on the Middle East, or reading Arab press – especially those sponsored by our allies in the Gulf. America’s president issue strong warnings to another Arab dictator(yes a handful of them still around despite what naively and historically wrong called “ Arab Spring”) dictator accused of using (WMDs) or chemical weapons, our prime minister straight away joins the chorus disapproval, while the opposition ( from the dictator’s own nation), backed by our Arab friends in the Gulf call l for western intervention. Heard it all before?

Pray read on…..

Reports from American and Israeli intelligence services  of  ‘ limited use ‘ of Sarin gas, a nerve agent described as chemical weapon, allegedly by regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, came two days after a Commons Statement by Foreign Secretary William Hague.

 Mindful of Tony Blair’s 2003 ‘ 45 minutes’ threat to Britain  by Saddam Hussein’s WMDs in a statement to the commons and his spindoctor Alastair Campbell’s infamous dodgy dossier ( both led to vote foe going to war on Iraq where no WMDs were to be found) MPs  lined up to warn Mr Hague against intervention in Syria as urged by a combination of strange bedfellows: Syrian opposition in exile ( with little evidence of credibility inside Syria) , Arab press controlled by our Gulf allies  and hawkish American officials, like Secretary of Defence ( or Defense in this case) Chuck Hagel .

A two years uprising resisted by force at the start, by the Assad regime claimed 70,000 lives and turned 1.3 million of Syria’s  22 Million people into refugees.

Although it is unlikely that Prime Minister David Cameron would try a Blair style intervention after, but his parroting of President Barak Obama’s warning to Assad, gave many MPs something to worry about.

Loudest calls for western intervention heard from our friends, the Qataris whose influence is growing in London through lavish investments and playing hosts to ambitious Tories like Boris Johnson .  

Do the Qataris  support people’s aspirations for democracy?

Qatar, where the Taliban’s mission officially operates, divert funds and arms to Sunni Islamic jihadists who label fellow Shia Muslims ‘ infidel enemies  worse the Christians and  Jews.’ President Assad’s family belongs the Alwiates an offshoot sect of the Shia faith.

Qatar rulers fund Hamas in Gaza ( £20 M) and  Muslim Brothers in Egypt ( £2 bn), but they jailed Qatari poet Muhammed al-Ajami for 15 years because a verse in his ‘ Arab democracy uprisings’ was interpreted as extending democracy to his own country; according to Human Rights Watch.     

Mr Hague, along with ith the  French, want to ‘ arm’ some opposition groups as a low cost intervention.

Who are those groups? Asked MPs and veteran British diplomats who know the region (known affectionately as ‘ the camel corps’ ) .

Syrian opposition seek a nofly-zone over areas ‘liberated’ by rebels, in a rerun of Libya’s 2011 operation which led to the overthrow of Colonel Gaddafi (and his murder without trial).

“Bad idea,” any British military officer would tell you. A nofly zone cannot be imposed without an unacceptable level of civilian causalities and heavy political price, warn MoD experts, as hundreds of radars ( located in densely populated areas) and advanced Russian supplied air defence systems have to be ‘neutralised’ first. The Russians are likely to operate their air-defence systems testing it against Nato resulting in losses and possible capture of RAF air crews. Enlisting Israel help or Nato bombing of more Arab targets is a suicidal foreign policy as it will be gif to hardline Islamists recruiting suicide bombers against British and American targets.

Hague’s plan  is laughed off as more of ‘a wishful thinking than doable’ by MPs like Sir Malcolm Rifkind ( Chairman of Intelligence & Security Committee, former Defence  and foreign secretary)  and seasoned diplomats like Sir Jeremy Greenstock ( Former UK man in UN and first in post Saddam Iraq) and , Sir Andrew Green, ambassador to Syria in the 1990s.

Even if Mr Hague managed to identify “the good guys”, there is no guarantee where  the anti-aircraft missiles (included in Mr Hague’s ” defensive equipment”) would end, warned labour MP Mike Gapes, (Foreign Affairs select committee former chairman). He reminded the House of lessons of arming Mujahidin with similar missiles in 1980s, which ended Taliban hands to use against British forces in Afghanistan, while some fell into al-Qaeda and affiliates like jabaht al-Nusra, the strongest rebel group in Syria which swore allegiance to al-Qaeda .

Mr Hague admits that ‘tens of thousands’ of foreign Jihadist who share al-Qaeda’s doctrine fight in Syria (former UN and Arab league envoy Lakhader Ibrahimi says 30,000 – 40,000 foreign fighters are engaged in Syria’s civil war, ), among them 700-900 jihadists from EU countries including scores of British nationals are fighting in Syria. Not only they are likely to come back radicalised, but with sophisticated weapons or at least access to them.

Unlike Tunisia and Egypt 2011 uprisings when the army chiefs swiftly removed unpopular presidents,  Assad’s army remained largely loyal. Even if Assad’s is  removed, says  Sir Andrew Green, he would only be replaced by one of the ruthless generals who controlled Syria for  40 years. Assad ‘s Alawite who form 12  per cent of Syria’s  people, have been the backbone of the army since it was founded by the French colonials. They control the organs of the state with a Soviet style public sector as the largest employer. They control security services who violently suppressed the Muslim Brotherhood led opposition. With decades of scores to settle, the Alwaites know losing power means their ethnic extermination.

Minorities in Syria’s mosaic, like Christian, Druze, Kurds, Armenians and others prefer Assad’s rule to that of the Sunni majority, which in the event of regime defeat would be led by Islamists affiliated to al-Qaeda. A fair number of Sunnis (merchants, educated women, tourism investors and the intelligentsia) prefer an effectively secular (even authoritarian) regime to an alternative run by Muslim Brotherhood.

There are Nato contingency plans to send special forces to secure chemical weapons sites, or destroy them from the air. The later faces the nofly zone gamble while the earlier requires ‘ boots on the ground’ opposed by public opinion and unlikely to win a Commons vote. Assad’s Chemical stock is wide spread geographically, in the unlikely event of SAS and Navy Seals teams succeeding in occupying those sites, they will only be pockets surrounded by hostile forces and need air-support for the duration of period needed to destroy the stock. Help will have to come from the Israelis with an undesirable political outcome in the region.

The likelihood that the very action of arming the rebels to speed Assad’s fall  would lead to extremists Islamists groups putting their hands on nasty chemical weapons .

© Copyright Adel Darwish 2013

Prime Minister David Cameron, his Deputy Liberal Democrats leader Nick Clegg and leader of HM opposition Ed Miliband, who seldom agree on any thing, agreed to regulate the press opining the door for tyranny of the state to control the freest and best press in the world. The step is most welcomed by Arab dictators and despotic regime to emulate in more exaggerated forms to silence their critics.  Arab and Third world dictators as well as authoritarian and fascist Islamists regimes are delighted with our politicians’ attack on press freedom. They love it as the media they control are spinning how Britain, cited by demonstrators risking their lives for freedom and justice as mother of parliamentarian democracy, is today turning the mother of parliaments into a tool to censor, control and muzzle the press.

Only three hours before the motion to debate a Press Royal Charter  I was interviewed on the telephone by BBC Arabic service radio. The interview was preceded by an audio- report prepared by an Arabic reporter. The terms included in his report ( which I am almost certain a translation of a text cleared by a BBC controller) sent a chill down my spine.

Terms describing the new proposed press regulator, the code, the penalties and directions.   Some of the terms were : “ a new press-censorship board’’;  “ punitive measures against media enforced by new laws” ; “ a very wide acceptance [for need to censor the press] across the political spectrum” ; “ journalists and their employers will be subjected to severe punishment like hefty fines and forced to print front page apology”.

The Sun (out of all national papers) was singled out for examples of worst offenses including an accusation of hacking a phone stolen from an MP (in a tone of voice and hints that the paper’s journalists are likely to be implicated).

Since the BBC Arabic, contrary to what the advertise themselves to be or promote their message, are seeing themselves in direct competition with AlJazeerah, owned and heavily financed by the Sheikh of Qatar to promote anti-western Arab nationalism ( the type promoted by Colonel Nasser, Saddam Hussein and Colonel Gaddafi) and agenda of Muslim Brothers ( the grand-daddy of al-Qaeda and other Islamist terror groups) one can see why the BBC Arabic reporter was using terms favoured by Arab tyrants.

The BBC report of course will be used by Arab dictators and fascist regimes in the Muslim words to justify further attacks on press freedom and to muzzle the press, pointing at British new ‘ press censorship body by Royal Charter’ as an example to follow.

As the European Union agreed today to step up the pressure on Iran through another ubstantial package of sanctions, the Prime Minister David Cameron will tonight tell an influential gathering of the Jewish community that we need the courage to give these sanctions time to work while making clear that in the long term, if Iran does not address the concerns of the international community, nothing is off the table.

The Prime Minister who earlier this evening hosted a group of activists and charity workers marking the 70th Anniversary of the Council of Christians and Jews ( which included people of all faith like Muslims, will be addressing the annual dinner of the United Jewish Israel Appeal   Prime Minister Cameron will say that Iran was  flouting six United Nations resolutions.

Mr Cameron is among many world leaders who are sceptical of the Iranian regime’s claim that its nuclear programme is intended purely for civilian purposes, and expected to say tonight that such claim was ” not remotely credible.” The Prime minister will highlight Iran’s violent agenda citing its exporting terror and violence to Iraq, to Syria, to Gaza, to Lebanon and to many peace-loving countries across the world.

“Iran is not just a threat to Israel. It is a threat to the world,” Mr cameron will say .

He will warn against the calls that  nothing will work – and that we have to learn to live with a nuclear armed Iran. Mr Cameron is likely to say ” we don’t and we shouldn’t.But at the same time I also refuse to give in to those who say that the current policy is fatally flawed, and that we have no choice but military action.”

A negotiated settlement remains within Iran’s grasp for now, Mr Cameron is likely to say,  but until they change course, we have a strategy of ever tougher sanctions. Just today,

Britain has secured a further round of new sanctions through the EU Foreign Affairs Council. And these relentless sanctions are having an impact no-one expected a year ago.

Prime Minister Cameron will praise the EU moves saying they  have slowed the nuclear programme. Iranian oil exports have fallen by 45 per cent. That’s 1 million fewer barrels a day. And $8 billion in revenues lost every quarter. The Rial has plummeted – losing around half its value between May and September. Inflation is soaring – thought to be as much as 50 per cent. And the Iranian Regime has had to establish an economic austerity taskforce to manage the pressure they have brought on their own people.

“Most significantly, there are signs that the Iranian people are beginning to question the Regime’s strategy with even pro-regime groups protesting at the actions of the Government.

It’s mind boggling that the leaders of a nation so rich in oil have succeeded in turning their country into a banana republic desperately trying to put rockets into space while their people suffer, the PM is expected to say.

“The Iranian regime is under unprecedented pressure and faces an acute dilemma. They are leading their people to global isolation and an economic collapse. And they know it.

“They know too that there is a simple way to bring sanctions to an end – by giving the international community the confidence we need that they are not and will not develop a nuclear weapon.

Mr Cameron will reveal that he told Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu that now is not the time for Israel to resort to military action. Beyond the unpredictable dangers inherent in any conflict, the other reason is this: at the very moment when the Regime faces unprecedented pressure and the people are on the streets; and when Iran’s only real ally in Syria is losing his grip on power, a foreign military strike is exactly the chance the Regime would look for to unite his people against a foreign enemy. We shouldn’t give them that chance.

Mr cameron urges his Israeli counterpart and those concerned to have the ” courage to give these sanctions time to work.”

“But let me also say this. In the long term, if Iran makes the wrong choice, nothing is off the table. A nuclear armed Iran is a threat to Israel. And a threat to the world. And this country will work unwaveringly to prevent that from happening.”

The EU package targets the financing of the Iranian nuclear programme and ensures that Iran cannot circumvent existing sanctions in three key areas. Financially The EU has taken further steps to prohibit financial links with Iran. This includes: a financial cut off – prohibiting transactions with Iranian banks and financial institutions unless specifically authorised or exempt  like or example, for humanitarian purposes and for urgent needs in way similar to a UK sponsored policy which the UN used in dealing with sanctions on Iraq in the late 1990s. And and increasing government scrutiny of transactions; a full ban on the public provision of export credit insurance; and full designation of Central Bank of Iran except for channels for the provision of debt repayment and liquidity;

The second area which is trade. The EU is banning certain areas of trade altogether to make it harder for Iran to source the materials it needs to develop its nuclear programme. The bans cover an extension for key energy equipment, key naval equipment, graphite, raw or semi-finished metals, such as aluminium and steel, and software for integrating industrial processes. Arab sources said that they will help in this area since a great deal of Iran’s trade goes through the Gulf, especially the United Arab Emirates and Oman, both are very close allies of Britain

The third area are is Energy, where it hist Iran most given its dependence on Oil exports. The EU has taken steps to prevent the circumvention of the oil embargo and prevent Iran using its energy revenues to fund the nuclear programme. This includes a ban on the purchase, import and transport from Iran of natural gas, the construction of oil tankers for Iran, the flagging and classification of Iranian oil tankers and cargo vessels, and on the supply of vessels designed for the transport or storage of oil and petrochemical products. It also includes the designation of Iran’s key energy companies and their subsidiaries, as well as Iranian energy ministries.

While the Israelis are growing impatient, they lack the total military equipment to totally destroy all of Iran’s nuclear facilities. The Americans are not only denying them the neaded weapons, they are not willing to opena pandora’s box of terror in the region if they backed an Israeli attack on Iran. Such attack, they Israelis are unlikely to plan without an approval from Washington.

Foreign Secretary William Hague visited Egypt  last week where he met the Egypt’s newly elected Islamist president Mohammed Morsi and  then went to Baghdad where he met the Iraqi leaders. During the same week, there was human-rights abuse in both countries, especially against Christians, ethnic minorities, women and iun case of Iraq, there was a BBC film showing appalling treatment of homosexuals that boiled down to liquidation. There is no evidence that Secretary Hague raised any of those grave concerns with his Egyptians or Iraqi hosts.

Mr Hague’s 95 minutes answers to the House of Commons Select Committee  on Foreign Affairs today ( Tuesday 18 Sep 2012) confirmed my suspension that  David Cameron coalition government continues its  business as usual foreign policy sucking up to dictators and ‘friendly’ governments ignoring basic human-rights issues ( for which our brave soldiers die in Afghanistan and before that in Iraq) to pursue  narrow commercial or diplomatic interests despite repeated bitter history lessons showing that such policy is counter productive. Some might question using term ‘dictatorial’ in relation to an elected president like Morsi, but as a puppet of the Islamo-Fascists muslim Brothers, Morsi shows all signs of autocratic rulers : he closes down TV stations critical of his policies, journalists charged with offense of  ’ insulting the president’, he pardons and releases from jail terrorists sentenced to life for murder, and remains silent when his followers attack broadcasting centres  media outlets, churches and christian owned business. It is inconceivable that our foreign secretary was not aware of those developments in Egypt before his visit. If he didn’t know, then we waste our taxes funding a British embassy in Cairo.

When Mr Hague met the Egyptian president exactly a week ago ( and handed him an invitation from Cameron) , I asked Downing Street spokesman whether humanrights concern ( as above) was raised in Cairo. Predictably, he referred me to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.  Four different phone calls  and three emails to the FCO, were answered first by  a promise to ‘ check with Mr Hauge who is traveling to Baghdad’ to find out more and get back to you. Eight days later there is no reply from the useless FCO; which I discovered over 30 years covering foreign news in Fleet Street, that it was more interested in finding excuses for failing diplomacy, cover-ups, smears and spin against British journalists who expose their despotic friends and being apologists for their friends among Arab dictators. ( I personally was subjected to a campaign of complaints to my editor from the Foreign Office and their minister David Mellor in 1988-1990 when I exposed FCO turning a blind eye to illegal arms sales to Iraq’s dedicator Saddam Hussein, then their friend )

My conclusion was Hague raised no questions about humanrights issue in Cairo or in Iraq where the official spokesman of the Iraqi government told the BBC that homosexuality was harming national interests and admitted to an official witch-hunt against  gays, as the BBC documentary showed . But to give Hague the benefit of the doubt I waited until he gave evidence to the Commons Select Committee today. Labour MP for Ilford, Mike Gapes asked him direct questions on the issue. Hague gave the ambiguous non-committed  standard FCO answer @ of course human rights, minorityies rights and the rights of copts are imprntant and that is why it is been taken into consideration in writing the [Egyptian] constitution curreently underaway” when Mr Gapes repeated teh question also reagrds the gays rights, Mr Hauge gave the standard reply. He did not give a direct postive reply like ” yes I made it clear to president Morsi…. ” or ” I discussed the subject with President Morsi or XXX minsster.” compare this for example with his answer to Sir John Stanley’s question about Iran’s role in Syria  and whether Iran should be diplomaticall approached. His reply was ” last wek in Cairo I discussed with the Egyptian their propsal of a contact group on Syria including Iran in the groups, we discussed this fully and we pit our view.” this was not the case when he answered questions whether he  directly discussed specsfic cases of human-rights abuse in Egypt and in Iraq. It seems that the Camel Corps in the Foreign Office prefer to continue the old policy that hasn’t changed in a a century, not to offend dictators’ sensibilities  at the expense of the peoples’  basic rights.

The mad wave of protests targeting not just American embassies and business, but also western diplomatic missions, is getting nastier by the day, while elected Islamists leaders  in Cairo openly ask western democracies to change the law to criminalise expressions they see as critical of their interpretation of Islam.

An Iranian foundation, supposed to be a charity looking after the poor and orphaned muslim children, doubled the bounty offered on head of British Author Salman Rushdie. The justification of the foundation leaders Hassan Sanei was that had 1989 Khomoeni’s fataw to kill the British author for writing The Satanic Verses , “ others would have been deterred from criticising Islam.”

Worse, the reaction from Muslim leaders of  countries supposed on the road to democracy shows something much deeper and more sinister than just a wide gap of misunderstanding between the two cultures.

Arab and Muslim intellectuals have always accused western media of holding a stereotype of romantic view of  Arabia and Muslim world as claimed the late American Palestinian historian Professor Edward Said in his book Orientalism  where he accused western scholars of habitually ignoring realities on the ground and imposing their exotic fantasies on the region ( certainly Lawrence Durrell Alexandria Quartet is case in point where many of events and personae don’t relate to facts on the ground ). stereotyping of Arabs and Muslims by such orientalists, make them perhaps a target of ridicule or, a good  source for cartoonists , and stand-up comedians. Critics of western stereotyping of Muslims did not cite one single example of physical harm Muslims as a result.

Put the shoe on the other foot, the outcome is quite different and sometimes tragic. The western stereotype creators, like Oriental scholars criticised by Arab intellectuals have not just their counterpart in the Arab world who go beyond the stereotyping of western citizens into actually demonising them in a way that can endanger their lives.  Mohammed Morsi, the first genuinely elected president of Egypt is a case in point of such group. In previous speeches, media interviews and discussions Mr Morsi expressed the belief that 9/11 attack was not carried by Muslim but it was the work of Israeli Mosad. He never publicly corrected this claim despite requests from his American friends.  President Morsi has already been in the forefront of inciting the people to protest  instead of calming down hot-headed young muslims. He did not did not publicly criticise the Cairo mob attack on the US embassy and its breach until two days after the event  via his spokesman.

A leader with Morsi background should understand free expression as a basic component of  western culture. Mr Morsi, has a good command in English, spent many years doing his postgraduate in California ( holds a doctorate from the University of Southern California) and was a lecturer at an American college while two of his children were born in the US and are entitled to American citizenship. When he told President Barak Obama how angry he was over the YouTube film, he must have been aware ( unless his aids didn’t inform him which was unlikely) that President  Mr Obama had already made clear his revulsion over the video.

Does Mr Morsi actually believe that the US government had anything to do with the anti-Muslim video?  Or does he think his American counterpart can be held responsible for the thoughts, works and actions of over 300 million Americans? Is it possible that a former lecturer at an American college doesn’t know that, in a free society, the president has no power over the way his citizens express themselves.

It beggars belief that Egypt’s government opted for asking Western leaders, including President Obama to deliver the impossible Egypt’s Prime Minister Hisham Qandil, openly asks western democracy to impose pro-Islamists censorship . He told the BBC that Western nations should revise their domestic laws to “ensure that insulting 1.5 billion people, their belief in their Prophet, should not happen and if it happens, then people should pay for what they do”.

Not only does the Muslim Brotherhood government of Egypt want to ban its own citizens from expressions not  conforming to their interpretation of Islam, but also wants to ban the citizens of non-Muslim countries ( beyond their jurisdiction) from doing so.

This is something western leaders must not tolerate under any pretext.

As American embassies in North Africa, The Middle East and some Muslim countries come under attacks by what seems to various protests by angry mobs unfortunately some fellow hacks take a superficial view saying Muslims were incensed by a film insulting the founder of Islam prophet Mohammed. By doing so they ignore basic facts about the motives of those orchestrating the protest and the timing of it.

The BBC in several analysis – especially in two way discussion with their Middle East Editor, currently in Libya,- still take the line that the protests shows how America’s policy and motives are viewed with suspension and distrust in the region. They make no mention of the deliberate stirring up of  the protest by Islamist groups and even newly ‘ democratically’ elected Islamist leaders, especially in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. Most, if not all new ( post 2011 revolutions) regimes or political Islamists groups backing them planned this upheaval as it was they exactly the crisis they needed  if not themselves orchestrated ) this upheaval with an external enemy, bearing in mind a fact which was evident in all similar events (the Danish Cartoons, Salman Rushdie’s 1988 book, the teacher arrest over Teddy bear in children’s school in Sudan etc) not even one in 200,000 Muslims would have watched the film (it was first shown in June when the makers couldn’t even fill a small 60 seat auditorium and was available on You-Tube since early june), but it is rather interesting how many analysts ( especially BBC reporters) ignored the timing of political Islamists’ propaganda putting it on front-pages on the eve of 9/11 with a specific aim in mind. For example in Benghazi, where the BBC keep peddling the claim that it was an angry mob that stormed the US embassy killing the ambassador and three of his staff, the reality on the ground indicates it was NOT the mob that killed the diplomats but an Islamist armed group Ansar al-Shariaa ( the partisan of Islamic law ) group who organised the attack and had weapons prepared and had access to the the intelligence of the staff and ambassador’s moves even the address of the a safe house to which embassy staff retreated which came under attacka day later.

In the case of Egypt, this crisis came as a god’s gift to President Morsi and his Muslim Brothers masters.
The crisis deflects wide criticism in media of Morsi’s failure (even in a public speech) to come up with proposals for coherent policy or plan to address economic problems and lack of social justice that was a main trigger for revolution.
It also helps move the focus away from the erosion of human rights, censorship ( newspapers closed and journalists charged with ‘ insulting the president’ to face trial ) and attacks  on arts, culture and women’s rights by playing the Muslims favourite card of the decadent west targeting Islam and Muslims, hence making the above liberal issues appear  not to be that important ( in the mind of the masses); on the contrary, they’d argue, you need an Iranian Islamic republic type strong message of protecting Islam.
Muslim brothers calling a million-man march ( entitled  ”championing the prophet”) designed to consolidate their grip on the streets after all the marches in the past few weeks were called by liberal and secular groups against Morsi and MB. Following their followers attacks  TV stations which were closed down for being critical of president Morsi’s policies, MB see  this as  rehearsal for future attacks on  any cultural centres, arts or theatres, etc not conforming to their ideology, attacks  Egyptian liberals nervously expect, as they said.
Morsi’s ambiguous  stand is designed as a subtle ( but not that subtle from a western view) message to Washington that he can tune, up or down, anti-American feelings and protest at will;  a message to the Obama administration after the latter’s phone call to Morsi  Tuesday ( the reading of the script released by the US embassy in Cairo sounded more of an apology rather than making the Egyptian leader responsible for the safety of US diplomat) I n places like Lebanon, Iran, and other pro president Assad regimes countries, protests attacking US and western missions a warning that toppling Assad would unleash anti-American and anti Western forces.
In Iran, of course rekindling the great Satan enemy theory  helps moves  focus from regime’s failure in economy, hum rights and foreign policy over the nuclear weapons issue. In addition it is important for the Iranians not let Sunni organisations like Muslim Brothers monopolise anti-American protests and the facade of protecting Islam ;  the Shia must do their bit too…

In Sudan, the regime of Military Islamists Gen Bashir ( wanted by ICC for genocide and war crimes in Darfur and split the southern part of his mainly Christian part) encourage the protest again to shift focus from his appalling policies into an outside enemy.
In short like the old days when Arab dictators ( colonel  Nasser, Saddam, Assad, Gaddafi etc) kept anti-Israel, anti-America as a  convenient  tool to use to keep protests and mass’s negative energy away from targeting them, why the new Islamists autocrats should be expected to behave differently?

Unfortunately we will expect more since the Obama administration, and to a certain extent British foreign policy, seems to back Isalmists  take over hoping they would bring stability and continue business as usual.

It is almost tempting to say those countries are not ready for democracy yet, but is not that simple. With educational system ( starting with colonel Nasser destruction of the pre-1958 educational concept established on European style in Egypt 1832  by Rifaa Tahtawi & Ali Pasah Mubarak,) there is hardly  demarcation lines separating the collective psyche ( or collective mind of the masses – if one can use it) from the cynical attitude of the ruling autocracies and political groups ( most of Batathist style colonel Nasser’s Arab nationalists identify the same ‘ enemies’ Israel, west America, like Islamists); I think I was among very few ( and for weeks the only) Cassandra(s) in Fleet Street & British media during early 2011 ‘ revolutions’… warning that with poor education and way-below-standard Arab media peoples in the region were sleepwalking into historic disaster with replacing dislodgeable masters with a much harder to dislodge ones.

——————————————————————————————–

© Copyright Adel Darwish 2012, not to be reprinted, reproduced, quoted in whole or in part without permission

Shock after meeting my financial adviser…I have to work until I drop dead, no chance for retirement or even slowing down; thanks to George Osborne and Danny Alexander. While I should be winding down my activities, due to health reasons and age Unlike most people in my age and younger, employed in public sector or in the civil service have the option for early retirement on a comfortable pension, I have no option but to carry on working as self-employed, author, commentator, writer and journalist with no retirement option.

For many years ( since I became a senior experienced journalist, I get paid quite high rate per column inch, or per broadcast minute and still cheaper for publishers or media to engage me on freelance bases rather than full employment.) Then when some serious health issues ( and injuries) prompted my doctor to raise the question of retirement or at least part retirement and winding down the mad hours I put in ( a Westminster lobby hack spends long hours in parliament, as well as live TV and radio commentary and writing two books– you can’t say now to a commission when you are self employed ). I explained to the doctor that retirement is a zero option.

In addition to substantial debts, I  have no employer pension nor a private pension; instead, I invested heavily in property ( real estate) and worked extremely hard and long hours to subsidies loss-making property when the rent ( prior to 2010) did not cover the mortgage payment and continuous repair costs on the let out property that I accumulated instead of pension.

But thanks to George Osborne lunatic policy of blanket capital gains tax penalising people like me who prepared for their retirement in personal investment, I became a ‘professional’ landlord by default or fluke not by design and will remain so until the undertaker transfers my body to the church and the property burden to my children so they start their own battle with HMRC.

The idea in the late 1980s black Monday when I realised that 10 years of paying hefty £333 a month for pension came to nothing since shares, unit trusts etc ( the bundles financial advisers take most of our hard earned cash to invest in pension), it was less than one fifth of what was projected as growth by the adviser. I took out what is left, and borrowed from the bank manager a sum to be  repaid at the rate of £333 ( the amount of pension contribution) over 10 years. I used both sums, as well as another sum from re-mortgaging my home as deposit on several buy-to-let property. I accepted losses as my own contribution pension contribution.

The plan was simple, and made sense ( but didn’t take into account the nastiness of HMRC, formerly Inland revenue in penalising people who took the initiative to create their own pension pot). It was to sell two property to pay off my home mortgage and substantially reduce the capital borrowed on one let out house, enabling the switch from interest only to repayment ( capital plus interest) leaving a modest income from rent to retire on.

Alas, capital gains tax means nothing will be left from the sale to pay off my home mortgage, let alone the house I thought would generate my ‘ pension’. Not only you pay the 28% capital gains tax, but also the ‘income’ from the sale added to your income in that tax-year so suddenly you pay, 40%,50%, or more  income tax….

so much for the conservative idea of encouraging individual self employed to be self reliant and prepare for his/her  retirement….no chance of retirement

The government ( Deputy Prime Minister office) publish the house of lords reform bill.

the final electoral period Government proposes 360 elected peers, 90 appointed ones and 12 bishops and other spiritual lords.

here is summary of the proposed structure of the House of Lords:

I In the first electoral period the House of Lords is proposed to consist of—

120 elected members,  30 appointed members, then up to 21 Lords Spiritual ( Bishops and religious figures from other churches and  faiths)  . In addition to any ministerial members, and the transitional members for that period.

II – in the second In the second electoral period the House of Lords is to consist of:  240 elected members,  60 appointed members, up to 16 Lords Spiritual, in addition to any ministerial members, and the transitional members for that period.

III- Then In each subsequent electoral period the House of Lords is to consist 360 elected members, 90 appointed members, and up to up to 12 Lords Spiritual, and any ministerial members.

In reply to the committee report the  Government states that it accepts that a mainly elected House of Lords is likely to be more assertive, as it has been after every major reform to its membership. However, the Government believes that this will enhance the ability of Parliament as a whole to hold the executive to account.

Summary of the Bill:To make provision about the membership of the House of Lords; to make provision about the disclaimer of life peerages; to abolish the jurisdiction of the House of Lords in relation to peerage claims; to make other provision relating to peerage; and for connected purposes.

Link to the Bill on  the house of lords site

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/houseoflordsreform.html

Shame, many British hacks failed readers/listeners reporting Egypt.

Is British media (with very few exceptions) confusing or misleading readers, viewers and listeners on the situation in Egypt? Sadly the answer is yes.I might (largely but not entirely) disagree with several Egyptian commentators who accuse British media of deliberate bias, or at least being selective in not showing the entire picture.

Egyptian commentators see conspiracy and believe it to be a  part of the British Foreign Office design  to see the Muslim Brothers ‘stable’ rule. Historically the British Secrete diplomacy was responsible for creating and funding the Muslim Brothers in 1920s and 1930 to combat the national movement, so goes the wisdom  in Egypt.

However, with few exceptions in left wing media ( whose deep seated Anti-Americanism makes them sympathetic to Ismaists in an open anti-US anti Israel bias), it is sheer ignorance and laziness that making seasoned correspondents in all Fleet Street papers and BBC not checking facts or leave them out.

Failure to put Egyptian republic in historic context 

Take the Egyptian new president Dr Mohammed Morsi, whose election defines the end of the First Republic 1953-2012 ( by itself illegal and unconstitutional staring with an illegal military coup in 1952) and the start of the second republic.

He is first democratically elected president since Egypt ( unconstitutionally ) turned republic exactly 59 years ago (June 1953),  and the first elected head of state in over 6000 years.

All fellow fleet street hacks, and networks BBC, SKY, ITN etc, failed to explain this important information. And given the 100s of years history of Egypt, with which every British school child is familiar, it would have been interesting and informative.

This would have also  put the republican presidential institution in contest which differs of what we understand. The weight of history and the centralised authority of the state, which goes back near 7000 years as the Nile was/is central to economy, gives  the president a Pharaoh-like status; which what the Egyptians tend to do. The exception was the parliamentary system period ( 1922-1954) with separation between state headed by a king and government changes by election and headed by a majority executive prime minister.

Comical exaggeration of ” American Educated”

Not only non of this important historic background was missing from British media reporting, nearly all hacks  referred to Dr Morsi as ” American Educated.” The man only spent about three years in California studying for his PhD between late 1978 & 1982. This was a time when Islamists flooded western universities in post-graduate studies and almost all lived in their little cultural ghetto of an Islamic Emirate , turning their back on culture arts and other forms the west provided. This doesn’t exactly make that devout traditional Islamist ( not just a Muslim but an Islamist) politician ” American educated” .

Missing events outside Tahrir Square

Nearly all TV cameras, and reporters pitched their camps in Tahrir Square, missing events in Nasr City, east of Cairo where secular activists gathered in 100s of thousands, mainly supporting Ahmed Shafik, and The Military.

One understands al-Jazeera ( both Arabic and English) ignoring every event which is not backing Dr Morsi ( al-Jazeera owned and financed by the Sheikh of Qatar, which backs and finances the Muslim brothers and al-Jazeera is a platform of their ideologue Shiekh Youssef Qardawi who was denied visa to enter UK for his support of terrorism) but bizarrely, BBC and Sky ignored marches ( reached more than a Million  last Saturday) Thursday-Sunday in support of Shafik remaining in Tahrir Square.

Selective information about candidates  

Take BBC reports (or two ways with London presenters) by Hugh Sykes from Cairo. He was totally obsessed with secular presidential candidate Ahmad Shafik ‘military career’ and being a Mubarak official. While making not a single mention to Muslim Brothers candidate Mohammed Mursi’s convictions by criminal court on terrorism charges. Mursi  was serving a prison sentence when prisons were broken into last year. Like most correspondents from major Fleet street papers Sykes ignored that Shafik retired from the Air Force over   15 years ago. He took economic and technocratic positions like head of the Civil Aviation authority, believing in reforming the loss-making sector along free-market lines, he turned Cairo airport from a national scandal into one of very few public sector service that actually made money.

Factual Historic Errors

Coverage by the Guardian, the Independent, The Daily Telegraph etc, included some scandalous errors showing total ignorance of one of Africa’s and the Mediterranean most important countries with huge effect on Arabic speaking nations.

Mistakes like repeatedly labelling last autumn parliamentarian elections as ‘ the first free parliamentarian elections in Egypt’s history’ which is plain wrong.

Any A level history student ( or even reading  any reference book or ‘ History for Dummies) would know that Egypt had a functioning strong, Westminster style parliament between 1922 – 1954 ( when abolished by Army military coup in 1952), with free election and change of government ( majority party/coalition asked by the King to form government and would go to the people when losing a no confidence vote or at the end of the four years mandate).

Nearly all British media correspondents mislead their readers, viewers and listeners on the question of Muslim Brothers. In describing the group as ‘banned by successive governments,’   or ‘ long repressed by dictatorship’ or ‘ persecuted for 80 years,’ etc without explaining to the readers or the listeners why. In fact the Muslim Brothers were banned by court orders obtained by two civilian democratically elected successive governments in 1942 and 1948 following the group’s long sustained campaign ( started around 1932) of terrorism, violence and assassination; intimidating women, planting bombs in cinemas, theatres, bars and nightclubs and assassinating judges who sentenced the bombers ( although it was only three years sentences). Yet most British reader or BBC listeners remained ignorant of those well documented and accessible historic facts. Not a single British paper, or media outlet mentioned the Muslim Brothers great crime of burning the centre of Cairo, its hotels, cinemas and bars in one night ( 26 January 1952).

Misleading labels  

Then comes the label that all British media stuck on one of the first round of presidential election runners, ‘moderate’  Islamist Dr Abdel-Moneim abu-Alfutoh. Because he ‘resigned’ from membership of the Muslim Brothers. No mention that he was head of the Gamat Islamyiah responsible for some of the worst acts of terrorism (like the killing of 62 tourists including a dozen British subjects in Luxor 1998). Even in his election campaign he never disassociated himself of acts of terrorism or condemned violence, on the contrary he praised former terrorists from the group as ‘martyrs’.

There is a long list of errors, miss-presentation of facts and laziness in not checking well documented events by many of my fellow hacks…. it is really shame when we fail our readers/listeners who trust us to do our job properly in the first place.

end