According to Stephanie Speirs, director for Yemen at the National Security Council 2011-12, "Yemen is now a model for democratic possibilities."

Ballot of the February 21 2012 election in Yemen. One candidate, no "No" vote.

Such are the democratic possibilities the Obama administration wants everyone to have.

Thanks for the good discussion in the previous Egypt thread. Arnold Evans, with whom I usually agree, has a different take on the situation there than I have.

When one looks at the history of this revolution it was the Brotherhood that came late to it. It was the Brotherhood that promised not to go for the Presidency and not to go for a majority of the parliament. They broke both of those and several other of their promises. They can not be trusted to do what they say.

Morsi was elected with some 51% of the 50% of the Egyptian electorate that voted. That is not what I would call a clear mandate. It is at maximum a caretaker position. But that wasn't enough for him. With the power in the parliament the MB stuffed the constitutional assembly with its own people and ignored the opposition.
Some of  yesterday's protesters had voted for Morsi but are now dissatisfied with them. I doubt that the MB and Morsi still have a majority of Egyptians behind them.

A constitution must reflect the whole of the electorate, not just the majority party. The purpose of a democratic constitution is to protect the minority from the dictatorship of the majority. But everyone but the MB and the Salafists has by now left the constitutional assembly because all their attempts for compromises and to make it inclusive were voted down.

When Morsi declared himself an incontestable pharaoh he also moved the deadline for the writing of the new constitution two month into the future. Today the MB declared that the constitution draft would be ready tonight and would be immediately put up for a vote. That is not a reasonable political process.

There were and still are much better ways to do this. After the downfall of Suharto in Indonesia the constitution was changed bit by bit in a long process. The attempt in Egypt to create a completely new one while riding on a roller coaster of political and economic upheaval is unlikely to go well.

The Egyptian president is supposed to be non-partisan. But while Morsi has officially left the Brotherhood his policies are exclusively the Brotherhood policies. Are we really to believe that this is what his voters wanted? Or did they want some figure they could trust to lead the political process to bring Egypt forward towards a stable state?

The alternative to Morsi is not the return of a dictatorial SCAF. Neither the U.S. nor the military believe that that could be done without igniting a civil war. (Thanks to Libya the Brotherhood cells are by now well armed.) The alternative to a partisan Morsi is an inclusive Morsi.

As Nathan Brown writes:

[W]hile the crisis is not fully a product of the actors’ intentions, Egyptians will not find a path forward unless their leaders find within themselves an intention to resolve their differences through compromise. The constitutional process is badly broken, but it can still be repaired.

The opposition can find a set of demands that is not predicated on denying Islamists the fruits of electoral victory or bringing the president down. The president can back down on parts of last week’s dictatorial moves.

The basic elements of compromise have not been destroyed — yet.

The Brotherhood announced a demonstration of its followers on Saturday. It plans to have this at Tahrir square where yesterday a hundred thousand protested against Morsi and where some of those protesters are still camping out. Should the two groups meet the situation could become bloody very fast. The "elements of compromise" would than likely be destroyed.

The Brotherhood should step back, avoid the danger of a blood conflict and go for a real democracy. If it is so convinced of having a majority behind it why does it want to rush a process that will define and guide Egypt through the next decades?

Morsi's priority now should be to get a new parliament elected. The constitution should be left alone until that parliament is well seated and has defined its working procedures. It could then task an inclusive group of notable people as constitutional assembly to write a new constitution in which each article is compromised on until it receives at least a two-third majority of the constitutional assembly. The constitutional draft should then be voted on by all until one is found that a super-majority of the people can agree on.

Only an inclusive solution can guarantee Egypt's stability.

When the Egyptian president Morsi gave himself dictatorial powers I suggested that:

We will not hear a word of protest over this from the White House. Just imagine an Egypt where the government would have to implement what the Egyptian people want. The horrors. Much nicer than to have a new dictator, even a religious one, to implement Washington’s policies.

With his negotiation of a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas Morsi had just proven that his foreign policy is very much in line with western wishes and unchanged from Mubarak times.

We therefore have heard nothing from the White House or other western governments that puts pressure on Morsi to retract his edicts. What we get instead is an attempt by some leading western media to whitewash the dictatorial powergrab by suggesting that Morsi has somewhat backtracked on it.

• The NYT headlines: Seeming Retreat by Egypt Leader on New Powers
• The Washington Post claims: Egypt’s Morsi appears to accept some limits on his power
• The NBCnews blog: Egypt’s Morsi, top judges compromise to defuse soaring tensions over decree
• The BBC claims: Egypt crisis: Mohammed Mursi tries to defuse tension

None of that is true. Morsi spokesperson made it clear that nothing, that is zero, changed in his declaration:

Egypt’s President is sticking by a controversial decree granting him sweeping powers, on the eve of planned nationwide rallies to protest the move.

There is ‘no change to the constitutional declaration’, presidential spokesman Yasser Ali told reporters, after a meeting on Monday between Morsi and the country’s top judges aimed at defusing the dispute.

Unlike what some media suggest there was no change in Morsi’s position. That he would continue in his dictatorial stage was also obvious when yesterday Mursi changed the professional union code to allow himself to stack union leader positions with Muslim Brotherhood people:

According to the new law, the manpower minister, who is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, may appoint workers who are members of the group in leadership positions that would become vacant in the Egyptian Trade Union Federation (ETUF), which has always been affiliated with the government.

…
It also grants the minister the right to appoint board members of unions if the minimum required number of members is not attained for any reason, to fill the vacant seats on the board.

Labour activists fear the law paves the way for Brotherhood control of the federation.

The unions and the striking workers, especially in the northern port cities, were very much part of the movement that brought Mubarak down. Stacking the union boards is an attempt by the bourgeois Muslim Brotherhood to get the workers under their control.

But none of pieces with the misleading headlines about the alleged “compromise” mentions the union coup. As long as Morsi is keeping in line with western foreign policy and even supports the general anti-worker globalization agenda he will be lauded to the hilt. It will not matter that he is dictatorial, that his police continues to torture or that the Brotherhood elite will defraud the country.

All the western talk about democracy and human rights is again proven to be just hot air and the western media is again very much in line with that scam.

There are again huge protests in Cairo’s Tahrir square and people are again calling for the downfall of the regime. Only this time they will get no support from the Brotherhood friendly Al Jazeerah and from those western media that are whitewashing the new dictatorship.

Found nothing I'd like to write about so this one is for your news & views.

The New York Times has a fawning story about the new relation between Obama and Egypt's president Morsi:

As he and Mr. Morsi talked, Mr. Obama felt they were making a connection. Three hours later, at 2:30 in the morning, they talked again.

The cease-fire brokered between Israel and Hamas on Wednesday was the official unveiling of this unlikely new geopolitical partnership, one with bracing potential if not a fair measure of risk for both men. After a rocky start to their relationship, Mr. Obama has decided to invest heavily in the leader whose election caused concern because of his ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, seeing in him an intermediary who might help make progress in the Middle East beyond the current crisis in Gaza.

Having established his credentials with the colonial overlord Morsi immediately felt free to also establish his credentials as the new dictator of Egypt:

President Mohamed Morsi's Thursday decree announced that all decisions, laws and declarations passed by the president since taking office cannot be appealed or revoked by any authority, including the judiciary.

Mursi also gave himself the power to take any decision to "protect the revolution."

We will not hear a word of protest over this from the White House. Just imagine an Egypt where the government would have to implement what the Egyptian people want. The horrors. Much nicer than to have a new dictator, even a religious one, to implement Washington's policies.

The Egyptian revolution has failed. It will now devour its children.

After 150 people were killed dead and $1 billion in damages some kind of a Gaza ceasefire will be in place at 9pm local time. We have yet to see if it holds. Just a week ago Egypt had brokered a truce agreement between Israel and Hamas only to see it sabotaged when Israel killed Hamas military leader Ahmad Jabari and started the current conflagration.

This ceasefire comes after Hillary Clinton managed to broker a deal between two intractable foes, Bibi Netanyahoo and Ehud Barak who until today differed over a ceasefire agreement.

It is not yet clear what has been agreed on but a first phase of quiet. What about the Israeli blockade of Gaza? What has Egypt agreed to with regard to its border with Gaza? Will it hinder the restocking of Hamas' armament which will, as nothing was settled, be needed for the inevitable next round?

What was promised to other groups in Gaza who would probably like to continue the fight? And what did Obama promise to get Netanyahoo to agree to this ceasefire?

There is also the inevitable question of "Who has won and who has lost?" The parties will not have agreed on an answer to that question. What do you think is the answer to that question?

According to the BBC's Paul Danahar the Israeli conditions for a ceasefire in Gaza are:

1. No hostile fire of any kind to come from Gaza into Israel including smalls arms fire at Israeli troops near the border
2. Hamas fighters must be stopped from traveling to the Sinai to carry out attacks against Israel at the Sinai/Israel border
3. Hamas must not be able to rearm – International and regional actors needed for this
4. A ceasefire must not simple be a "time-out" for Hamas, it must be an extended period of quiet for Southern Israel

Israel wants Egypt to play a "key role" in this, guaranteeing the points 2 and 3. That is just another of many attempt of dumping its Gaza problem onto Egypt. Morsi would be crazy to agree to that. There will thereby be no guarantees.

According to an U.S. official Israel also wants the Hamas official "in charge of guns" in Gaza to guarantee the ceasefire. That is a great idea but Israel killed the most able guy, Ahmed al-Jaabari, capable of not only controlling Hamas but also the other fighting groups, right at the beginning of its new war on Gaza. That has significantly reduced the chances for a long term ceasefire. There will be promises from other groups to hold fire but there can again be no guarantees.

Hamas has, of course, also demands. It wants guarantees that:

1. Israel stops its bombardments,
2. promises not to enter Gaza,
3. ends targeted assassinations and
4. lifts its economic blockade of the Gaza strip.

Whatever the outcome no one, not even the U.S, could guarantee Israel's promises and Hamas certainly knows that Israeli promises are usually not worth the paper they are written on.

But these are now the opening position to what looks likely to become protracted negotiations.

Netanyahoo wants to win the demanded concessions solely by continuing the air war, bombing this or that house of some Hamas functionary or another police station into rubble. In principle Israel could continue to do so for weeks. But after more than 1,400 strikes on Gaza all obvious targets on its list have already been hit. What is it going to bomb next if not civil infrastructure and the civil population?

Netanyahoo, as well his allies in Washington and London, fears a ground war in Gaza. His troops would likely get bogged down in urban guerrilla fighting and would take losses from the new arms Hamas acquired from Libya and elsewhere. Public opinion in Israel would turn against Netanyahoo should any invasion of Gaza end up with high casualty rates on the Israeli side.

But if Israel continues the bombing the pressure from the outside to end the war will increase. There are this time many more journalists in Gaza than there were in 2008. Detailed news and pictures of each and every civilian killed is getting out and with each of them Israel's position in the court of world opinion will sink further.

The bombing campaign has a time limit and a ground war is too dangerous. Those are the weaknesses of Netanyahoo's position.

Hamas knows those weaknesses. As longer it holds off a ceasefire while continuing to fire some rockets into Israel the better its negotiation position will become. It will probably try to goad Netanyahoo into a ground war. One rocket hit with a high Israeli causality rate might be sufficient to achieve that. After such a hit public pressure, especially from the right, to go "all in" would increase. At some point Netanyahoo might have no other way to end the stalemate but by committing more forces. Hamas is likely well prepared for that moment.

As long as Hamas keeps its fighting spirit and does not give in to appeasement pressure from Qatar and other U.S. clients it has a good chance of – in the end – coming away stronger while seeing Netanyahoo weakened.

Israel hits 2 Gaza media HQs, 6 journalists injured

The Al-Shawa building, struck in the early hours, houses a number of media organizations, including Ma'an News Agency's headquarters in the Gaza Strip.

A Ma'an correspondent said the impact was focused on the eleventh floor, where the office of al-Quds TV is located.

Six journalists were moderately injured, five of whom were identified as Darwish Bulbul, Ibrahim Labed, Muhammad al-Akhras and Hazem al-Daour, all al-Quds TV employees.

…
A second Israeli airstrike around 7 a.m. hit a second media complex in Gaza City , the al-Shuruq building.

Sky News Arabia and Al-Arabiya reported that their offices have been affected.

Shortly after the above happened:

IDFspokesperson

The sites that we targeted overnight were all positively identified by precise intelligence over the course of months.

Really stupid hasbara is …

… bragging about ones own missile strike while using the hashtag #stoptherockets.

h/t bungdan

Fiction:
Wall Street Journal

Israel Mobilizes Troops as Hostilities Escalate

After nearly four years of calm along the Gaza border, Palestinian militants have slowly stepped up their mortar and rocket attacks on Israel in recent months.

Facts:

Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
PROTECTION OF CIVILIANS WEEKLY REPORT
31 OCTOBER – 6 NOVEMBER 2012 – Gaza Strip

Palestinian casualties by Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip:
Killed this week: 1
Killed in 2012: 71
Killed in 2011: 108
Injured this week: 1
Injured in 2012: 291
Injured in 2011: 468
Israeli casualties by Palestinian fire from Gaza
Injured this week: 3
Injured in 2012: 19

News & views …

The Israeli defense force changed the name of its attack on Gaza likely to somewhat hide its theological background.

The attack began with the assassination of Ahmed al-Jaabari, the leader of the military arm of Hamas, the al-Qassam brigade.
This start, as usual during a ceasefire, makes it more unlikely that this war on Gaza will end soon. Al-Jaffari was somewhat Israel's subcontractor because he was "in charge of maintaining Israel's security in Gaza". Shortly before he was killed he had received the draft for a long term truce with Israel. He was probably the only one who could and would influence other militant factions in Gaza and thereby guarantee a ceasefire and peace. Killing him while negotiating a truce with is a sign of fanaticism and not of rational thought.

The Israeli operations name was first announced in Hebrew as "Pillar of Cloud" which the general sense is a "Shekhinah" – the visible symbol of the divine presence – which occurs several times in the Exodus, the saga in which the Israelite flee from Egypt. In this case there is a more specific interpretation:

Cont. reading: Kooks Fighting Each Other

It is election season in the worlds most militarized state and Netanyahoo therefore does what his voters like him to do – killing Palestinians:

Israel killed the military commander of Hamas in an airstrike on the Gaza Strip Wednesday, bringing the two sides to the brink of a possible new war.

The attack came despite signs that Egypt had managed to broker a truce between Israel and Palestinian militants after a five day surge of violence which saw more than 100 missiles fired out of Gaza and repeated Israeli strikes on the enclave.

Additionally to the military commander a police station and other targets have been bombed. A second wave of strikes is ongoing as I write. The Izzis have given the operation a name, "Cloud Pillar" or something like that, which means that this will be longer operation and another war on Gaza.

If Egypt were still under Mubarak I would expect that the slaughter would end after about thousand death and nothing would have changed. Unless Israel fully occupies the Gaza strip there would be no lasting strategic effect.

But Egypt now has a government that is has to, at least somewhat, answer to its voters. There will soon be new parliamentary elections in Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood is in a political competion with forces on the left and on the right. Seeing their brokering of a truce sabotaged by Israel and under internal political pressure the Morsi government will have to do more than to just stand by and watch.

The situation is also different with regard to other players. Hamas has support from Turkey and Qatar. Jordan is very weak as is the Abbas regime in the West Bank. Both could fall.

This war on Gaza could thereby have strategic effects which would likely be of the kind that Netanyahoo voters will not like.

fiscal cliff (fskl  klf) 

bipartisan rethorical political device to

1.  cut social safety nets
2.  enrich the elite of the predator state

Instead of just jumping over the fake cliff as his voters would certainly prefer Obama will use it to pay back the billion dollar he borrowed from the predators to finance his reelection.

Joshua Foust thankfully takes down the Petraeus cult and deserves to be quoted at length:

General Petraeus had a reputation his record simply could not support. It would be difficult to say Iraq was noticeably improved by his presence – certainly before 2006, but also during the Surge (which produced only a temporary cessation in the incredible violence). At CENTCOM (United States Central Command, where he was Director from 2008-2010), he oversaw the expansion of the war in Afghanistan, which has been a humiliating disaster. Additionally, his protégé, Stanley McChrystal, made a mockery of civil-military relations and was summarily fired. As ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) commander, Petraeus oversaw a dramatic rise in violence in Afghanistan, the adoption of “night raids” and a complete breakdown of relations between Kabul and Washington. And at the CIA, he has pushed the final transformation of an agency known more for its human element into a paramilitary engine of assassination – leaving a huge gaping hole where the country’s human intelligence capabilities used to be.

This is not a man who should be drummed out of office for having an affair. He should have been drummed out of office for not living up to his own legend. David Petraeus is a paper tiger: his personality cult looks impressive until you get close enough, and then the whole façade crumbles away.

That Petraeus could rise through the ranks as he did and could keep up the façade is only one sign of the dysfunction of the U.S. military and the associated political-industrial complex. Here is another such sign neatly expressed in one side sentence in a piece about the Asia pivot (itself a result of dysfunctional strategic thought):

Doubts persist among lawmakers and naval experts about the maneuverable and relatively small littoral combat ship, which is not designed to operate in a combat environment.

The biggest symptom of its dysfunction is the loss of two very expensive wars against minor enemies during the last decade.

A brown nosing, narcissistic but incapable officer corps, "combat ships" not designed for combat and a military not capable to win wars are sure signs of a decline in U.S. power. Unless the U.S. political elite goes through some upheaval and completely rethinks its approach to military force the U.S. will certainly lose more wars and accelerate its own decline.

The rest of the world will not be too unhappy with that. Unfortunately though even a dysfunctional military and a declining power can still create massive damage.

What are they saying?

As the Petraeus "All In" affair continues to unfold new revelations about the attack in Benghazi are the most interesting parts of it.

On October 26 Petraeus lover Paula Broadwell gave a talk (video) at an alumni symposium. She pointed out that three Libyans were held at the CIA "annex" compound in Benghazi and that this was probably the reason why it was attacked. That was know due to a Foxnews report that was published earlier that day:

According to a source on the ground at the time of the attack, the team inside the CIA annex had captured three Libyan attackers and was forced to hand them over to the Libyans.

Foxnews now stupidly asks if that Broadwell speech may have revealed classified information. But as Broadwell refereed to "the facts that came out today" she obviously had read the Foxnews report and just repeated its claims.

But there is a new much more important issue buried in today's Foxnews report:

Cont. reading: A Black-Hole Prison in Benghazi

Last week the Syrian National Council elected a Christian, George Sabra, as its leader to somewhat disguise that it is still under control of the Muslim Brotherhood.

[T]he Brotherhood secured 23 seats out of 41 seats for the general secretariat of the Syrian National Council.

The new SNC leader called for a peaceful resolution of the conflict – not:

"We need only one thing to support our right to survive and to protect ourselves: We need weapons, we need weapons," Sabra told reporters after the vote.

Under pressure from the U.S., which wants a more compliant puppet than the SNC, and under advice from the Qatari paid Brookings Doha, the SNC then agreed to join with some other opposition groups that were hand selected by U.S. government.

This created a new monster, the "Syrian National Coalition for the Forces of the Opposition and the Revolution". While the SNC was at least disguising its sectarian stand the new SNCFOR is again lead by someone who will likely not be acceptable for the minorities:

The group’s new leader, Moaz al Khatib, who had served as the imam at the historic Umayyad mosque in Damascus until he left the Syrian capital in July. […] Khatib is said to have the support of municipal councils in rebel-held areas. He also has the backing of the Muslim Brotherhood.

(Would a Cardinal Ratzinger really be a good choice to lead a secular protestant Prussia?)

One difference between Sabra and Khatib is a noticeable change in their demands:

In his first remarks as head of the new organization, Khatib said Syrians “need humanitarian aid and to stop the bloodshed.” He avoided calling for arming the Syrian resistance.

That remark is consistent with the calls by the U.S. for a "political solution" in Syria. It would fit my hunch that the purpose of this new group is to allow for negotiations and for regime-led change in Syria.

But the new group smelled the rat:

Cont. reading: Syria: The New Coalition For Further Destruction

Did the editor at the very recommendable Al-Akhbar read the piece s/he headline?

It is just a Reuters piece but headlined by Al-Akhbar as: Pentagon knew of Sept.11 Benghazi attack before it began. Before??? Before!!!

Yes, but before we jump into conspiracy theories let's read the first lines:

Pentagon leaders knew of the Sept. 11 attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi an hour after it began, but were unable to mobilize reinforcements based in Europe in time to prevent the death of the US ambassador, according to a timeline released on Friday.

…

Puh. So after reading that we can be assured that everything that the government said to have happened in Benghazi really happened the way we are told it did. BTW – The original Reuters piece at the Reuters Canada site is headlined Pentagon releases Benghazi timeline, defends response.

Al-Akhbar only changed the headline but either the editor did a poor job or those folks put this up as a hint that they know something we do not yet know.

Any speculation what that might be? And how does this fit with the timing of Petraeus' resignation over the "All In" biographical research Paula Broadwell did in "The Education of David Petraeus"?

So Petraeus got caught screwing with his dishonest hagiographer Paula Broadwell and had to resign. (My hunch is that there is much more behind this story but it will take a while until we learn about that.) 

Petraeus was responsible for many horrible things done in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. On example is the liberation of Tarok Kolachie in Arghandab River Valley. Paula Broadwell described the destruction of such villages, and other Petraeus crimes. She was callous towards the victims and flattering to the perpetrators. Another Petraeus adulator and buffoon, Tom Ricks, published her. He also should, together Petraeus and Broadwell, go down in flames.

Before liberation

After liberation

Joshua Foust, no bleeding heart himself, wrote at that time:

I cannot comprehend why the deliberate destruction of villages seems to be an official, sanctioned ISAF policy in the South. Is is abhorrent, an atrocity, and there is no excuse for it (nor are there words for the anger it’s stirred in me, reading about it from afar; I suspect Broadwell would sniff at me to stop whining as well, were we to discuss it in person). This should outrage and infuriate everyone who reads about it. But, and this is where I move from rage to despair: how could we ever possibly hope to stop it?

Removing the perpetrators from their position is the only way to stop such atrocities. Petraeus' and Broadwell's fall is late but welcome justice.