Competing Meetings On Gaza In Kuwait, Qatar Highlight Divisions In Arab World (VIDEO)
The visceral response seen across the world to Israel's attacks on Gaza has been described by many as an unprecedented outpouring of support for Palestinians suffering in Gaza. Millions have taken to the streets to protest the war, even in Kuwait, a country that is one of America's closest Arab allies and that rarely witnesses such an outpouring of impassioned protesters.
But on Friday, as Arab foreign ministers held meetings to discuss the war on Gaza just two days before the Arab Economic Summit was set to begin in Kuwait, conservatives and liberals, Sunnis and Shiites marched alongside South-Asian workers, chanting slogans including "No concessions! No Surrender!" and "America is the mother of all terrorists."
Immediately following Friday's call to prayer at least 5,000 protesters marched from Masjid Al-Kabir, Kuwait's largest mosque, towards the parliament building, echoing the anger and embarrassment felt by many Arabs and emboldening the Islamist extremist base both in the streets and parliaments of Arab countries.
Watch thousands of protesters march in Kuwait calling for an end to the war, Israel and America:
The march ended at Martyr's Square directly opposite the parliament building where Nasser al Sane, a Kuwaiti parliament member, told the crowd, "It is shameful [Arab leaders] are holding an [economic] summit while there are Israeli flags still flying in Arab countries."
Protesters carried signs praising the Venezuelan and Bolivian presidents that read, "Viva Chavez, Viva Morales and no sympathy for Arab leaders!" One week earlier, in the first parliamentary session held in two months in Kuwait, Islamist parliamentarians challenged Arab governments, condemning Egypt, and praising the initiatives taken by South American countries.
"I call for moving the Arab League from Cairo to Caracas," Waleed al-Tabtabai, a member of Kuwait's Parliament told his colleagues. "[Chavez] proved that he was more Arab than some Arabs."
Venezuela expelled the Israeli ambassador from Caracas over two weeks ago in protest of Israel's offensive on Gaza while many Arab governments, like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, still maintain ties with Israel. Venezuela's move highlighted the perceived failure of Arab leaders to take serious measures to end the violence, prompting parliamentarians across the region to challenge the credibility of Arab leaders as heads of state and as Muslims.
Foreign ministers from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt insisted on discussing the war at the Arab Economic Summit in Kuwait, refusing to attend an emergency summit in Doha called for by Qatar's Emir, who urged Arab leaders not to further delay discussions. The Doha summit was organized with the expectation that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas would attend, but he too didn't show up. His absence prompted Qatar's Emir to send a private jet to bring Khaled Meshaal, the head of Hamas's political wing, from Syria to meet with the heads of Islamic Jihad, the secular Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahamadinejad. As Arab leaders bickered about where and when discussions on how to end the war on Gaza should be held, Israel's invasion continued and Arab outrage soared. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan's refusal to attend the summit in Doha suggests that they may have been extremely confident that a ceasefire would be declared before the Arab Economic Summit on Monday. Israel's unilaterally declared ceasefire on Saturday night seems to confirm speculations that American officials, probably from the Obama administration had established an agreement with Israel that their military offensive would end before Obama's inauguration.
This gives Obama at least a millisecond to take a deep breath before rolling his sleeves up on day one and offering his promised and much-anticipated, though likely unchanged policy perspective on the war on Gaza. After all, America deserves to throw a huge party to celebrate the departure of an extremely unpopular president and the arrival of an unprecedented and popular one.
Still, the absence of representatives from most Arab countries exemplified the inability of Arab leaders to speak in a collective voice and weakened their already crumbling credibility -- especially among opposition groups and Islamist factions. It also solidified the deepening divisions that have been forming in the region in recent years placing the governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Kuwait and others that are allied with the United States on one side and Syria, Iran, Libya, Hamas and Hezbollah on the other. Qatar, which has earned a reputation for playing all sides against one another, called for the conference with America's biggest foes in the region, despite its extensive U.S. ties (including hosting the U.S. Combat Air Operations Center, which served as a key center for the U.S. invasion of Iraq and U.S. operations in Afghanistan).
After helping remedy Lebanon's political crisis following its own war with Israel in summer 2006, Qatar's summit was viewed as an attempt to relive its glory, but it was unable to secure enough participation in the emergency summit to give it the same significance the meetings taking place in Kuwait will garner from an international perspective.
Despite the UN's passing a resolution calling for a ceasefire on XXX, a hospital, media building and UN compound were all shelled on Thursday. The director of the UN Relief and Works Agency, John Ging, described the "relentless bombardments" as leaving tons of food in a food aid warehouse burning, adding it was impossible to extinguish the flames from rounds that emitted phosphorus.
When the UN resolution carried no weight, the General Assembly was prompted to hold an emergency special session to evidence the international community's opinions.
Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, president of the General Assembly, opened the session by focusing on a reality that was stressed repeatedly at the emergency summit in Doha.
"If this onslaught in Gaza is indeed a war, it is a war against a helpless, defenseless, imprisoned population," he said. "Gaza's civilians find themselves locked inside a lethal war zone behind a wall surrounding their densely populated territory," he said. "They have no means of escape."
Khalid Mishaal, used his unprecedented position as the main representative for the Palestinian people to reiterating Hamas' stance to reject Israel's terms for a Gaza ceasefire and call for a fund to be set up to help the Palestinians in Gaza.
The boundaries and alliances that were drawn as the two separate summits held in Kuwait and Doha proceeded are bound to complicate and delay whatever decisions Arab leaders are able to make in the coming weeks and months.
Israel has single-handedly decided it was time for a ceasefire. But many questions remain.
Will Hamas stop firing rockets now that Israel has declared a ceasefire?
Will protesters, human rights advocates and the media move on from the humanitarian crisis in Gaza to the one in Sri Lanka or Congo?
The answers remain unclear, though there is one question that many in Gaza have been asking since the war began that can be answered.
Q: Where are the Arabs?
A: In the streets protesting like much of the rest of the world. But their leaders are couped up in swanky hotels, meeting in separate countries, and arguing over where, when and what to talk about, instead of listening to the streets for suggestions.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I was somewhat amused to see the Islamic extremists extolling the virtures of Hugo Chaves (VEN) as being more islamic than Arabs. 2 reasons:
1. It is easy shake a saber when you are thousands of miles away and don't have any weapon other than your voice.
2. Chavez is now asking for financial aid - help from the oil companies (US) which lost millions when he nationalized the oil production
Only when the political, religious and economic missions of these countries are coalesced into some type of negotiated policy will there be any type of international peace...go
Chavez, however much of a grandstander he may be, is no threat to anyone save for some wealthy or upper middle class Venezuelans, and big oil companies.
The natural resources of a nation should be used first and foremost for the economic development of that nation, and not as some negotiable commodity to be auctioned off to the highest bidder by a corrupt and subservient oligarchy.
The pattern repeats itself over and over-nationalize the oil, and either be toppled in a coup, fall victim to the assassin's bullet, or become the subject of universal demonization in the MSM.
With regards to the Arab world-it is hardly a surprise that there is considerable diversity of views among an ethnicity numbering in the hundreds of millions. The fact that the one thing that brings virtually all Arabs together with one anti-American voice is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, just shows how prescient George Marshall was when he predicted this very thing back in 1947.
This piece does a great job of illustrating that in the Middle East, as is the case in the U.S. and elsewhere, the policies and actions of a government don't necessarily reflect the views of that country's people. Of equal importance is that it serves to remind us that the Middle East is comprised of many countries, each with its own government, culture, and agenda. Thus in discussions of, and interactions with, the Middle East, we must learn to steer clear of oversimplifications and broad generalizations.
My adopted son, was killed by bombing in the early 90's.
Enough!
Oh sorry it still hurts. He was only seven, and Sri Lankan orphan. Now he's gone and nobody by my family cares that this is stopped?
Watch my dust in progressive moves.
The problem is one of world view. The West's world view is significantly different than that of the Middle East, which is why we see different responses to the crisis depending upon how far the country is from the action.
The Middle East has consistently shown itself to follow some simple rules that the West rejects, and in fact doesn't see because of it's filter on world events:
1. Might makes right---In the West, we like to think that we're beyond simple butt-kicking as a deterrent. We like to think in terms of negotiation. But, in the Middle East, butt-kicking is a way of life. You leave someone alone if they can kick your butt, and you attack them if they can't. Notice how quiet Hezbollah has been since 2006.
2. Death is not so bad---In the West, we think that death is the worst thing that can happen. But its been shown time and again, that Middle Eastern cultures don't view death with the same weight as the West.
Of course, this notion that there is a basic difference in Middle Eastern world view will be rejected by Western thinkers who are arrogant enough to think that their priorities are universals. They do so at the cost of not really understanding what's going on.
There is a problem with rule number one. The notion of "might makes right" has been governing Western forgein policy for a pretty long time. Keep in mind that most imperialist powers were Western nations. As far as negotiations go, America refused to negotiate its invasion of Iraq. Why? Because it takes away from precious butt kicking time! This idea that the West is above throwing its weight around is just not condusive to historical facts.
What a sad day in the third world.
Usually faced with a humanitarian catastrophe of this magnitude the Arab states would spring into action and take the decisive move of holding a conference and issuing a suitable proclamation. And if there is anything the Arabs as a people excel in, it sure is issuing well worded highly rhetorical proclamations. Usually after hammering out a decisive rebuke to Israel and the USA the delegates go home well satisfied at their accomplishment.
Chastened and chastized both Israel and the USA mend their ways.
When you have part of a religion that's for peace and the others radicals out to destroy anyone who disagrees with them, I see why there's a division! Geez. Are they afraid to talk?
The division is purely political.
First, there's one group of Arab rules who depend on the USA for their survival as they have little or no domestic support. And who are mightily scared that success by Hamas might embolden their domestic subjects into throwing them out.
Second, then there's another group who are opposed to the USA policies in the region and support those who oppose these policies. Their legitimacy among their populations rests in part on being anti USA.
So you have Shi'ite groups supporting Hamas (a Sunni organization).
And Sunni groups supporting Israel and the USA>
This has about as much to do with religion as the 700 Club Ministry.
Excellent point, Rog.
Yeap.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
