Richard Whittall:

“The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer has helped me immensely with great information and perspective.”

Bob Bradley, former US and Egyptian national coach

"James Dorsey’s The Turbulent World of Middle Eastern Soccer (has) become a reference point for those seeking the latest information as well as looking at the broader picture."
Alon Raab in The International Journal of the History of Sport

“Dorsey’s blog is a goldmine of information.”

Play the Game

"Your expertise is clearly superior when it comes to Middle Eastern soccer."
Andrew Das, The New York Times soccer blog Goal

"Dorsey statement (on Egypt) proved prophetic."
David Zirin, Sports Illustrated

"Essential Reading"
Change FIFA

"A fantastic new blog'
Richard Whitall of A More Splendid Life

"James combines his intimate knowledge of the region with a great passion for soccer"
Christopher Ahl, Play the Game

"An excellent Middle East Football blog"
James Corbett, Inside World Football

Saturday, July 26, 2014

In death, soccer fan-turned soldier embodies Israeli-Palestinian gap

Israeli Staff Sergeant Nissim Sean Carmeli

By James M. Dorsey

In death, Staff Sergeant Nissim Sean Carmeli, a 21-year old soccer fan, embodies the deep fears, distrust and dehumanization of the other that has exploded into massive bloodshed in Gaza, threatens to spark another uprising on the West Bank and makes achievement of even a temporary Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire an almost impossible task.

One of 13 members of the Golani Brigade, an elite Israeli military unit, killed in Gaza on July 20, Mr. Carmeli is to Israelis a hero. The vast majority of thousands of supporters of Maccabi Haifa FC, at the funeral of Mr. Carmeli, a dual Israeli and US citizen, didn’t know him personally even though he attended as many of the club’s games as possible. They were responding to a call on the fans’ Facebook page that has 20,000 followers not to leave ‘a lone soldier,’ the term the Israeli military uses for personnel whose families don’t live permanently in the country, alone as he was administered his last rites.

“I never knew him, but I don’t miss a game, so Sean and I must have been together in the stadium. So we shared something," a supporter wearing a Maccabi Haifa jersey told Ha’aretz newspaper. Maccabi fans are known for their emotional and unbending support for their team.

To Israelis the rallying around Mr. Carmeli represents Israel at its best, “a demonstration of Israeli solidarity at wartime,” as a friend said in an email. “This is the best example of what the people of Israel can be. In times of trouble, we bind together. This is our tradition, our narrative. A boy like Sean expresses values we all admire – loyalty, a willingness to give to his people, openness, warmth, caring. That’s why so many different people – religious and secular and Haredim (ultra-Orthodox Jews), young and old – are all here,” Ha’aretz quoted an official of the Israeli immigrant absorption ministry as saying during the funeral.

The official, Yaakov Danon, head of the ministry’s unit for immigrant soldiers, reflected how heart wrenching
Mr. Carmeli’s death is to both those who were close to him as well as to Israelis at large. That is to say Israeli Jews. Israeli Palestinians or Palestinians who are Israeli citizens and not residents of Israeli-occupied territories and account for 20 percent of the Israeli population did not figure in Mr. Danon’s definition of who and what Israelis are. Nor did the hundreds of innocent Palestinian civilians, including four boys aged 9 to 12 playing soccer on a Gaza beach, who have died in the almost-three-week-old Israeli assault figure in the grief of the thousands of Israelis who did not know Mr. Carmeli but came to his funeral to pay him their last respects.  

That is telling in a city like Haifa that prides itself as a model of Israeli-Palestinian coexistence and home to persecuted Muslim minorities in the Middle East with its Bahai World Center on a hill overlooking the city and Ahmadiyya community. A city of 600,000 predominantly Jewish residents, Haifa’s population includes 60,000 mostly Christian Palestinians. At least seven of the 27 players of Maccabi Haifa, Israel’s most popular, club are Palestinians. A recent documentary, ‘Haifa’s Answer – Coexistence in Israel,’ projects Haifa, as “a unique example of coexistence in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, although the ideal of a shared society still seems to be far.”

To Palestinians in the Gaza Strip under continuous assault as well as to those protesting on the streets of cities on the West Bank, Mr. Carmeli was an American who migrated to Israel to squat on what was once their land. He was part of a machine that has made life hell for them since the imposition seven years ago of a blockade of the densely populated territory and is now in their view indiscriminately seeking to exterminate them. In their minds, Palestinians have already surrendered much of their land to the Israel but in return Israel refuses to recognize their right to those lands the Jewish state occupied during the 1967 Middle East war.

At the root of the divergence of perception is a belief among Israelis that Palestinians refuse to recognize their rights and seek to exterminate them. Palestinians have no doubt that Israelis at best want to continue to subjugate them and at worst wipe them off the map. This divergence of perception is what makes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict unique and engenders the kind of fear, distrust and dehumanization of the other that renders any meeting of the minds almost impossible. Unlike most other national conflicts, the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is one in which both parties envision themselves as victims.

A Palestinian sociologist, one of the few to recognize this fundamental obstacle to any agreement with Israel, summed it up as he stood at the foot of a West Bank hill crowned by an Israeli settlement and pointed his finger at residential buildings: “See how small those windows are,” he said, “those are people who are afraid.” Said a middle-aged teacher at Mr. Carmeli’s funeral: “Being here is a way to express the fear that we all feel that it could be any one of our loved ones who could die, in the army or in a missile attack."

Fear throws out the window notions of proportionality and that what applies to one party applies to the other. Israel, one of the world’s military powerhouses, is fighting a militia with overwhelming military superiority and apparent disregard for civilian life despite protests to the contrary in a false belief that only force and demonstrations of strength will ensure its security. The notion that death breeds more death and that security cannot be built on the exercise of military superiority alone is non-existent.
Israelis, certainly those resident in the south of the country, live in daily fear of ineffectual Palestinian rockets. 

Yet in each of the three wars that Israel and Hamas, the Islamist militia controlling Gaza, have fought in the last six years those missiles have become more sophisticated with the help of Syria, Iran and Lebanon’s Shiite Hezbollah as Ahmed Jibril, the Damascus-based leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC), admitted in a recent interview. Hamas moreover is proving its mettle in urban combat in Gazan towns.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not one that will be decided on the battlefield. If Israel’s wars in recent years have proven anything it is that Israel triumphs on the battlefield but is defeated politically. Hamas, the party Israel wants to cut down to size, is likely to emerge perhaps not liked but certainly in command of the kind of respect that Palestine Authority President Mahmoud Abbas increasingly lacks on Palestinian streets.

Protests on the West Bank deliver a message to both Palestinian and Israeli leaders. The message to the Palestinian leadership is a demand for a unified leadership that can stand up for Palestinian rights. The message to Israel is that Hamas is as much part of their leadership as is Mr. Abbas. In other words a rejection of Israel’s hope that its assault on Gaza will undermine the recently formed nationality unity government that is supported by both Mr. Abbas and Hamas.

That message is reinforced by the daily pictures of innocent Palestinians dying in Gaza that will serve only to strengthen mounting international criticism of Israel – criticism that is shared privately in the highest circles of the Obama administration even if it continues to publicly support Israel.

Israelis and Palestinians will only be able to embrace compromise when they are able to overcome their fears and recognize that what they demand for themselves is what their opponent too demands. Palestinian aspirations are no different from those of the founders of the Jewish state. Israeli prioritization of security, feeding on perceptions of a Jewish history of victimhood and the horror of Palestinian suicide bombings more than a decade ago, is no different from the security that Palestinians, terrorized by repressive Israeli policies and perceived disregard for Palestinian lives, want.

Mr. Carmeli’s death and that of some 39 other Israelis and more than 800 Palestinians in the latest Gaza war will have been in vain as long as Israelis and Palestinians refuse to recognize that they are mirror images of one another.

James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies as Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, co-director of the Institute of Fan Culture of the University of Würzburg and the author of the blog, The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer, and a forthcoming book with the same title.


Friday, July 25, 2014

Middle East Conflict: Need for Credible Mediator

RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and 
analysis of topical issues and contemporary developments. The views of the authors are their own and do 
not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, NTU. These 
commentaries may be reproduced electronically or in print with prior permission from RSIS and due 
recognition to the author(s) and RSIS.Please email: for feedback to the 
Editor RSIS Commentaries, Mr Yang Razali Kassim. 

 No. 148/2014 dated 25 July 2014

Middle East Conflict:

 Need for Credible Mediator
By James M. Dorsey


The need for a credible universally-accepted mediator between Israelis and Palestinians has
never been greater. Despite Israel’s devastating bombardment of Gaza the two sides for
the first time agree on what a long-term arrangement should be. Both want a long-lasting
ceasefire but need a third party to negotiate the terms. 


AMID THE death and destruction raining down on the Gaza Strip there is a sliver of hope.
Seldom have the makings for a mutually-agreed long term arrangement that would give both
parties a degree of stability and security and allow for Palestinian  as well as  Israeli
economic growth, been better than today.

In fact, in a perverse way, the Israeli assault on Gaza has improved chances for
such an arrangement by politically strengthening Hamas, the Islamist militia, which is no
match for the Israeli military but has already  scored a psychological victory. Hamas
demonstrated its ability to reach major Israeli cities with its rockets, infiltrate Israel proper,
persuade international airlines to halt flights to Tel Aviv, and put up fierce urban resistance
inside Gazan towns.

Israel’s military victory but political defeat

Israel hopes to weaken and demilitarise Hamas but not totally eradicate it because that
could open the door to more militant Islamist groups taking control of Gaza. In its view, a
weakened Hamas would strengthen Palestine Authority President Mahmoud Abbas
and either undermine the Palestinian position or render it incapable of negotiating a final
solution of the conflict on terms remotely acceptable to Palestinians.

This would spare Israel the painful decisions it would have to take that are necessary
for any definitive peace settlement to work such as the dismantling of Israeli settlements
on the occupied West Bank and a shared future for East Jerusalem, both of which it
conquered during the 1967 Middle East war. As a result, Israel’s preferred solution for
the medium, if not, the long term, is the status quo with effectively full control of the West
Bank and a defanged Hamas.

Although for very different reasons and on different terms, Hamas shares with Israel the
goal of a longer term arrangement that would not force it to make political concessions
such as recognition of Israel and renunciation of the armed struggle. Hamas has
repeatedly called for a ten-year ceasefire.

It recognises that Palestinians are in no position to persuade or impose on Israel terms
that would guarantee a truly independent Palestinian state alongside Israel that would be
anything more than a militarily weak adjunct of its powerful neighbour.

Nevertheless, as in most armed confrontations with Palestinians and Arabs since the
1967 war, Israel wins militarily but loses politically. If anything that trend is even more
pronounced in the current conflict against a backdrop of improved Palestinian military
performance, however limited, and mounting international unease not only with the
toll in  civilian lives but with Israeli policy towards Palestinian territories at large.

Hamas’ growing street credibility

In addition, Hamas has increased street credibility while Abbas has been rendered
even more ineffective than he already was. Using the death of three kidnapped
teenagers as a pretext, Israel went on the offensive against Hamas even before it
attacked Gaza to undermine the one effort by Abbas and Hamas for  the formation
of a national unity government that could have enabled the Palestinians to negotiate a
final solution to the Palestinian problem.

As a result, with neither party really interested in a final resolution, a long-term
arrangement is potentially the best deal on the table. Nevertheless, a deal on a long-
term ceasefire could well be stranded on issues such as the future of the seven-year
old Israeli blockade of Gaza that impairs its ability to freely import goods.

Other issues are Palestinian demands that it be able to build an airport and a port
- requirements for economic growth that would complicate Israeli control. Only a
mediator trusted by both parties would be able to explore whether those hurdles
can be surmounted.

Interlocutors talk to interlocutors

And that is where the problem lies. No single mediator – the United States, the
European Union, Egypt, Qatar or Turkey – is able to talk with any credibility to the
two key parties, Israel and Hamas. The US and Israel as well as various European
countries refuse to engage with Hamas whom they have labelled a terrorist

Egypt, while professing to sympathise with the Palestinians, is happy to see the Israelis
do the dirty work for them in weakening what they see as an offshoot of the Muslim
Brotherhood, the group it has banned as terrorists. Turkey’s relations with Israel have
hit a new low and Qatar has no formal ties to Israel.

What this in effect means is that interlocutors have to talk to interlocutors to reach one
of the two concerned parties – hardly a recipe for the kind of success that does not simply
end the immediate bloodshed but creates the basis for a longer term arrangement that has
a chance of moving things forward.

The ideal solution would be to bring Hamas in from the cold. That is obviously, with the
fighting on the ground, beyond the realm of the possible. US President Barack Obama’s
approach prior to the Gaza crisis was, after Secretary of State John Kerry’s failed effort
to negotiate a peace agreement, to let the parties stew in their own mess.

Letting the parties stew fails to recognise opportunity and produces calamities like Gaza.
A more constructive approach would be to recognise that neither Israel nor Hamas
– two parties without whom a final resolution will remain an illusion – want peace but do
want a long term cessation of hostilities. Achieving that would constitute significant
progress and make the massive loss of life less senseless.

James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies,
Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, co-director of the Institute of Fan Culture
of the University of Würzburg and the author of the blog, The Turbulent World of
Middle East Soccer, and a forthcoming book with the same title.

Nanyang Technological University

Block S4, Level B4, 50 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798
Tel: +65 6790 6982 | Fax: +65 6794 0617 |

Why Is the 2022 World Cup Being Held in a Country That Practices Modern-Day Slavery? (JMD quoted in The Nation)

Why Is the 2022 World Cup Being Held in a Country That Practices Modern-Day Slavery?

Migrant workers
Migrant construction workers on the outskirts of Doha, Qatar (Reuters/Stringer)
This summer, the populist fervor of Brazil’s World Cup sparked riotous street protests against the country’s economic hierarchy. But the 2022 World Cup in Qatar is being built in an even more unequal country, and there will likely be little public unrest, just vast expanses of deserts and skyscrapers, where the country’s poorest workers are forced to toil in silent captivity.
In this miniature oil empire, a tiny elite lords over an impoverished majority of imported workers. Now that thousands of those migrants are constructing the state-of-the-art arenas and gleaming modern transit hubs of world football, rights advocates are pushing for an abolition of Qatar’s medieval labor regime.
Human rights activists estimate the true costs of the World Cup in terms of the rising migrant death toll, estimated at about 1,200 nationwide since the World Cup was awarded, projected to reach 4,000 by the time the games begin. According to advocates, the harsh labor conditions at the game sites and surrounding infrastructure have led to a massive fatality rate; causes range from construction-related injuries to cardiac arrest to suicide.
In recent weeks, the Qatari government has presented reform plans such as strengthening employment contract law, improving housing standards and better regulating wage payments. Though it has shown more openness to labor reform than other Persian Gulf states, the government disappointed advocacy groups by stopping short of endorsing a minimum wage or unionization rights, and providing no set timetable for policy changes. Recently, the Qatar Foundation, a quasi-governmental think tank, issued one of the most extensive analyses yet of migrant labor issues, with similar reform recommendations, but still did not endorse the radical changes that rights groups have demanded.
Though the reform proposals encourage greater transparency and oversight of employers, along with international collaboration with migrant’s home countries, they basically leave intact (aside from a name change) the traditional structure of labor sponsorship, known as the kafala system, which activists say is at the root of the mistreatment and exploitation of migrants.
Investigations by media and advocacy groups like the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and Human Rights Watch have revealed that workers bound by kafala, mostly from South Asia, often live in squalid encampments, labor all day in hazard-prone, sweltering building sitesand often suffer fraud and wage theft. But the social and political isolation cuts the deepest. Workers are legally captives of their employers, blocking them from changing jobs or leaving the country.
The Qatar Foundation’s report, authored by the migration studies scholar Ray Jureidini, recommends developing “standardized ethical recruitment practices in the labor sending countries” and cutting down on excessive recruitment fees that put migrants in heavy debt. The report also recommends standardization and transparency in contracting. Nonetheless, it does not address workers’ needs for freedom of movement and the autonomy to break from an employer or leave the country. It also dismisses the idea of an equal pay law, arguing that “Qatari citizens have the highest GDP in the world,” so comparable wages for poor foreigners would be unfeasible.
Activist warn that whatever the law states, migrants in the kafala system typically have almost no legal recourse against abusive employers or protection from retaliation for challenging authority. The ITUC’s report on Qatar labor quotes a driver from the Philippines: “we are afraid to complain to the authorities. We see that workers who do complain are either blacklisted, deported or threatened. Our managers told us that workers who go on strike get deported within 12 hours.”
Even when migrant contract workers lose their jobs, they may end up stranded indefinitely if their employer does not give permission for them to return home. Workers who run away or are “abandoned” by their bosses might wind up homeless, unemployable and trapped on foreign soil.
Besides the World Cup labor camps, female household workers are even more vulnerable to abuse, as well as sexual violence. Thousands of domestic workers reportedly flee their bosses each year. A domestic worker, who ran away from a boss who had raped her, told the ITUC: “When I see a Qatari man, I am always afraid because I am thinking they will catch me and put me in jail, and send me to the Philippines. Running away from your sponsor is very difficult because I don’t have any legal papers, and then I cannot get a good job.”
Rights groups say the problem of migrant labor in Qatar is not simply that laws are not followed or enforced but that contracts are often used to control workers rather than to establish a mutual partnership, and thus lock them into an extremely oppressive system.
Union activists have called for a full abolition of the kafala system and guarantees of a minimum wage, freedom of assembly and collective bargaining, in accordance with international labor standards. The ITUC has even pushed for a rerun of the Qatar vote to stop the games altogether.
ITUC General Secretary Sharran Burrow tells The Nation via e-mail that the Qatar Foundation’s latest recommendations will be toothless unless migrants are guaranteed equal treatment and access to justice:
None of the reforms proposed in the Qatar Foundation report are going to work without rule of law, including a competent and fully-staffed labour inspectorate and a functional judiciary. If you look at the thousands of workers trapped in deportation centres, or with unsolved complaints, this is nowhere in evidence in Qatar. Once again, Qatar has shown a blind spot on the fundamental right of freedom of association. Not a word is mentioned in the Qatar Foundation report about Qatar meeting it’s international obligations.
But another challenge to reform is Qatar’s social and cultural anxiety about the country’s huge demographic imbalances. Qatar has one of the highest ratios of migrants to citizens, with foreign workers making up some 85 percent of the population.
James Dorsey, longtime observer of Mideast soccer politics and senior fellow at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, says that while the “enlightened autocracy” that rules Qatari society might be open to basic improvements in working conditions, the fundamental shift needs to begin on a cultural level. If Qatari officialdom ultimately decides to broach political issues like union rights and freedom of association, he says, it would follow “as a consequence of” other social and political restructuring as the country faces the fallout of minority rule.
At the same time, change is being accelerated by public pressure, as Qatar faces greater worldwide scrutiny in its bid to gain “soft power” through cultural and commercial investments.
“What the Qataris are realizing is that their winning of the right to host the World Cup not only gave them leverage, but gave others leverage,” Dorsey tells The Nation. “So suddenly…groups like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, they have moral authority,” amid the public outcry over worker deaths. “The ITUC,” he adds, “potentially has 175 million members in 153 countries, presumably a majority of those members are football fans, so it can actually move bodies.”
The upshot of World Cup 2022 is that in the glaring spotlight of football’s globalized populism, Qatar is finally being held to account for labor abuses that would otherwise be dismissed as just the cost of doing business. And fans around the world will now see that their fellow workers have paid the ultimate price for a few days of sporting spectacle.

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Attack on Gaza by Saudi Royal Appointment (JMD quoted on Huffington Post)

Attack on Gaza by Saudi Royal Appointment

Posted: Updated: 
There are many hands behind the Israeli army's onslaught on Gaza. America is not unhappy that Hamas is getting such a beating. As footage of the scenes of carnage on the streets of Shejaiya was coming through, John Kerry said on NBC's Meet the Presson Sunday that Israel had every right to defend itself and the US ambassador Dan Shapiro told Israel's Channel 2 news that the US would seek to help moderate forces become stronger in Gaza, meaning the Palestinian Authority.
Nor is Egypt overcome with grief. Its foreign minister Sameh Shoukry held Hamas responsible for civilian deaths after their rejection of the ceasefire.
Neither matter to Netanyahu as much as the third undeclared partner in this unholy alliance, for neither on their own could give him the cover he needs for a military operation of this ferocity. And that can come not from a handwringing but impotent parent like the US. Such permission can only come from a brother Arab.
The attack on Gaza comes by Saudi Royal Appointment. This royal warrant is nothing less than an open secret in Israel, and both former and serving defense officials are relaxed when they talk about it. Former Israeli defense minister Shaul Mofaz surprised the presenter on Channel 10 by saying Israel had to specify a role for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in the demilitarization of Hamas. Asked what he meant by that, he added that Saudi and Emirati funds should be used to rebuild Gaza after Hamas had been defanged.
Amos Gilad, the Israeli defense establishment's point man with Mubarak's Egypt and now director of the Israeli defense ministry's policy and political-military relations department told the academic James Dorsey recently : "Everything is underground, nothing is public. But our security cooperation with Egypt and the Gulf states is unique. This is the best period of security and diplomatic relations with the Arab."
The celebration is mutual. King Abdullah let it be known that he had phoned President Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi to approve of an Egyptian ceasefire initiative which had not been put to Hamas, and had the Jerusalem Post quoting analysts about whether a ceasefire was ever seriously intended.
Mossad and Saudi intelligence officials meet regularly: The two sides conferred when the former Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi was about to be deposed in Egypt and they are hand in glove on Iran, both in preparing for an Israel strike over Saudi airspace and in sabotaging the existing nuclear program. There has even been a well sourced claim that the Saudis are financing most of Israel's very expensive campaign against Iran.
Why do Saudi Arabia and Israel make such comfortable bedfellows? For decades each country has had a similar feeling in their gut when they look around them: fear. Their reaction was similar. Each felt they could only insure themselves against their neighbors by invading them (Lebanon, Yemen) or by funding proxy wars and coups (Syria, Egypt, Libya).They have enemies or rivals in common - Iran, Turkey, Qatar, Hamas in Gaza, and the Muslim Brotherhood. And they have common allies, too - the US and British military industrial establishments, Fatah strongman and US asset Mohammed Dahlan who tried to take over Gaza once, and will probably be at hand when next required.
The difference today is that for the first time in their two countries' history, there is open co-ordination between the two military powers. Abdullah's nephew Prince Turki has been the public face of this rapprochement, which was first signaled by the Saudi publication of a book by an Israeli academic. The prince flew to Brussels in May to meet General Amos Yadlin, the former intelligence chief who has been indicted by a court in Turkey for his role in the storming of the Mavi Marmara.
It could be argued that there is nothing sinister about Prince Turki's wish to overcome ancient taboos that his motives are both peaceful and laudable. The prince is a staunch supporter of a laudable peace initiative proposed by the Saudi King Abdullah. The Arab Peace Initiative supported by 22 Arab States and 56 Muslim countries would indeed have been a basis for peace had Israel not ignored it some 12 years ago.
Prince Turki waxed lyrical about the prospect of peace in an article published by Haaretz. In it he wrote:
And what a pleasure it would be to be able to invite not just the Palestinians but also the Israelis I would meet to come and visit me in Riyadh, where they can visit my ancestral home in Dir'iyyah, which suffered at the hands of Ibrahim Pasha the same fate as Jerusalem did at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar and the Romans.
Its the means, not the end, which expose the true cost of this alliance. Prince Turki's promotion of the Arab Peace Initiative comes at the cost of abandoning the kingdom's historical support of Palestinian resistance.
The well connected Saudi analyst Jamal Khashogji made this very point when he talked in coded language about the number of intellectuals who attack the notion of resistance:
Regrettably, the number of such intellectuals here in Saudi Arabia is higher than average. If such a trend continues it will destroy the kingdom's honorable claim to support and defend the Palestinian cause since the time of its founder, King Abd Al-Aziz Al-Saud.
Peace would indeed be welcome to everyone, not least Gaza at the moment. The means by which Israel's allies in Saudi Arabia and Egypt are going about achieving it, by encouraging Israel to deal Hamas a crippling blow, calls into question what is really going on here. Turki's father King Faisal bin Abdulaziz would be turning in his grave at what the son is putting his name to.
This Saudi Israeli alliance is forged in blood, Palestinian blood, the blood on Sunday of over 100 souls in Shejaiya.

Iran-Russia oil barter deal not in Iran’s interest (JMD quoted on Azernews)

Iran-Russia oil barter deal not in Iran’s interest

By Sara Rajabova
Iran and Russia's commitment to continue negotiations on oil barter deal has sparked concerns in some countries, especially the United States.
Some experts said such a deal would not be beneficial for Iran and even would damage the nuclear talks between Iran and P5+1 on Tehran's nuclear energy program.
However, a senior Iranian official said Tehran and Moscow are in talks to finalize the oil agreement irrespective of Tehran's nuclear talks with six world powers.
Commenting on the issue, James M. Dorsey, Senior fellow at Nanyang Technological University's S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies told AzerNews that a barter deal with Russia won't impact the nuclear negotiations.
"It would hedge Iran to some degree Iran against a potential failure of the nuclear talks and it would serve Russia's interest by positioning it in Iran in advance of a competitive rush should the talks succeed," Dorsey said.
Another expert believes that oil barter deal between Iran and Russia isn't in the interest of Iran.
Professor of economics at U.S. Northeastern University, Kamran Dadkhah said such a deal is quite against Iran's interest.
"On the surface it may seem that Russia is helping Iran to bypass international sanctions. But in reality it is Russia that is taking advantage of Iran's weak position to benefit economically. Russia is the third largest oil producer (after Saudi Arabia and the United States) and second largest oil exporter (after Saudi Arabia). Therefore, it cannot use the half million per day barrels of oil domestically; it has to sell it to its international customers. Therefore, Iran will be forced to accept a price far below the prevailing international oil price. On the other hand, Iran has to buy Russian goods at the market price. But because this is a barter trade (no international money involved) Russians will limit Iran to certain items and indeed to lower quality goods. Iran has had the same experience with China," Dadkhah said.
Earlier in April, Reuters reported that Iran and Russia were close to sealing a $ 20-billion oil-for-commodities deal.
Under the agreement, which is yet to be finalized, Russia will buy 500,000 barrels of Iranian oil per day in return for Russian goods needed by Iran.
Washington said such a deal would go against the terms of the interim nuclear deal between the world powers and Iran.
Earlier, U.S. Senators threatened to reinstate Iran sanctions that were eased under the Geneva deal in case Russia and Iran sign the barter deal.
Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh said in April that Tehran is determined to raise the volume of its economic transactions with Russia under long-term deals.
Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak, who co-chairs the permanent Russian-Iranian Commission on trade and economic cooperation, said the agreement on trade and industrial cooperation with Iran is expected to be signed in September, ITAR-TASS news agency reported.
However, Novak did not specify, whether the oil-for-goods deal would be included in the agreement or not

Saturday, July 19, 2014

P5+1,Iran unlikely to reach deal before July 20 deadline (JMD quoted on Azernews)

By Sara Rajabova
As the July 20 deadline for clinching a comprehensive deal on Tehran's long-lasting nuclear dispute is approaching, Iran and the P5+1 group is mulling on extension of negotiations.
Despite the optimism shown by some parties towards the chance of an agreement being reached, the two sides still remain at loggerheads over the main issues in the nuclear talks.
Reuters quoted Western diplomats as saying on July 16 that an announcement on the possible extension of the talks between Iran and P5+1 may come on July 18.
The officials from Iran and six countries, as well as the experts didn't rule out extending the talks as no tangible progress has been made at the ongoing nuclear negotiation.
James M. Dorsey, Senior fellow at Nanyang Technological University's S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies believes that the chances for reaching final nuclear deal before July 20 are low, but not impossible.
"The negotiators still have some tough issues to resolve. The likelihood of achieving that before July 20 is low although not impossible. The real question is whether negotiators believe the issues can be resolved. The answer to that question is a function of one's assessment of the balance of power in Iran between Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Iran's Supreme Guide Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guards," Dorsey told AzerNews.
He went on to note that if the talks fail, it can lead to harsher sanctions for certain. "The West would likely feel diplomacy has for now run its course. Otherwise, there would be every reason to continue negotiations beyond July 20," Dorsey said.
Iran and the six world powers kicked off their sixth round of talks this year in the Austrian capital, Vienna, on July 3 to discuss drafting a final nuclear accord.
The P5+1 and Iran reached an interim pact last November under which Iran won some relief from economic sanctions in return for reining in some of its nuclear activities.
Their goal is to reach a comprehensive nuclear agreement by July 20 that will lay to rest Western concerns about the Iranian program and ease all the sanctions on Tehran.
Commenting on the issue, professor of economics at U.S. Northeastern University Kamran Dadkhah also ruled out clinching a nuclear deal before the deadline.
"It is very unlikely that Iran and the P5+1 will reach a final agreement by July 20. But based on statements made by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and President Barack Obama on July 16 (when he imposed new sanctions on Russia), we can be sure that the deadline will be extended and discussions will continue," Dadkhah told AzerNews.
Noting that real progress has been made in several areas, Obama said the talks might continue beyond the deadline under the interim deal. He added that there was "more work to do."
He said the U.S. government would consult with Congress as it decided whether additional time was needed to complete nuclear talks beyond the July 20 deadline.
On the possibility of fail in talks, Dadkhah also expects new sanctions on Iran.
"Most likely there will be a combination of new sanctions and continuation of diplomacy and discussions. Because the alternative would be military action and so far President Obama has shown that he is not going to take that route," Dadkhah said.
The negotiators from Iran and P5+1 group cannot come to an agreement over the major issues that paves way to discussion on the extending the talks.
The two sides have made no announcement on any continuation of negotiation, at the same time they didn't made remarks on stopping the negotiation if talks fail.
Delay in the talks is not for the hands of neither Iran, nor the Western countries. Thus, the six world powers have made big progress to solve nuclear dispute with Iran and is very close to reach deal. Suspension of negotiations would mean to cross a line on all efforts of the sides.
On the other hand, it is also detrimental for Iran, as the country would again struggle with sanctions and experience the same economic difficulties as it was before.
Therefore, the continuation of talks and resolving the nuclear dispute will be beneficial for all.

"Rassistich und Ant-Arabisch" (JMD on Deutschlandfunk in German)

"Rassistisch und antiarabisch"

James Dorsey im Gespräch mit Marina Schweizer
Nach der Beerdigung des ermordeten palästinensischen Jugendlichen kam es in Ostjerusalem zur Protesten.
Nach der Beerdigung des ermordeten palästinensischen Jugendlichen kam es in Ostjerusalem zur Protesten. (dpa / Abir Sultan)
In Israel sind nach der brutalen Ermordung eines palästinensischen Jugendlichen sechs Tatverdächtige festgenommen worden. Möglicherweise gehören sie "La Familia“ an, einer Fangruppierung des Fußball-Erstligisten "Betar Jerusalem“.
"Vor allem Palästinenser mit israelischen Pässen spielen eine wichtige Rolle im israelischen Fußball", beschreibt der Journalist und Fanforscher James Dorsey die Fußballszene in Israel. "Ohne palästinensische Spieler wäre der Fußball in Israel nicht da, wo er heute ist", berichtet der Co-Direktor am Institut für Fankultur der Universität Würzburg im Deutschlandfunk. Alle Clubs hätten palästinensische Spieler, mit der Ausnahme von "Betar Jerusalem".
Der Club komme aus dem revanchistischen Flügel des Zionismus. Der Vereinsvorstand, so Dorsey, sei nicht glücklich mit dem Fanclub "La Familia". Maßnahmen gegen diese Fans wie Stadionverbote habe man aber bisher nicht vollzogen.
"Ob 'La Familia' an dem Mord beteiligt war oder nicht, der Vorfall wird eine Seelensuche in Israel verursachen", erklärt Dorsey weiter. "Die Tatsache, dass israelische Juden einen palästinensischen Jugendlichen so brutal ums Leben gebracht haben, ist  etwas, was in der israelischen Gesellschaft sehr viel Schmerz und Diskussionen ausgelöst hat." Das Resultat werde sein, dass künftig schon eine andere Haltung gegen "La Familia" eingenommen werde. 
Das vollständige Gespräch können Sie bis mindestens 12. Januar  2015 als Audio-on-demand abrufen.
Click here to listen to mp3