Egypt returns ancient statue to Iraq

CAIRO, Feb. 6 (UPI) -- An ancient Mesopotamian bronze statue smuggled into Egypt has been returned to Iraqi authorities, Egyptian officials say.

A spokesman for the Egyptian Antiquities Department says the statue was handed over to the Iraqi Embassy in Cairo during a special ceremony, Iraq's Azzazam news service reported Friday.

Spokesman Abdulzahra al-Talaqani said the return of the ancient relic is a signal of the willingness of nations to cooperate with Iraq in the recovery of its stolen heritage.

It isn't clear whether the bronze statue was among the thousands of artifacts that went missing from Iraq shortly after the U.S. invasion.

In addition to items taken from the Iraq Museum, archaeologists say thousands of antiquities have been smuggled out of the country due to illegal digging at scores of ancient sites.

Source: United Press International (UPI).
Link: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/02/06/Egypt_returns_ancient_statue_to_Iraq/UPI-88101233941292/.

Russia allows transit of US military supplies

By MIKE ECKEL, Associated Press Writer

MOSCOW – Russia granted transit rights Friday to non-lethal U.S. military supplies headed to Afghanistan but only after apparently pressuring a former Soviet state to close an air base leased to the Americans.

The signal from Moscow: Russia is willing to help on Afghanistan, but only on the Kremlin's terms.

Kyrgyzstan announced the closure of the Manas air base but American officials suspect that Russia was behind the decision, having long been irritated by the U.S presence in central Asia.

The Russian decision to let U.S. supplies cross its territory opened another route to those through Pakistan now threatened by militant attacks, but U.S. officials were still left scrambling for alternatives to Manas.

Russia wants to open discussions on thorny policy issues that Washington and Moscow have clashed on in recent years — NATO enlargement, missile defense in Europe, a new strategic arms control treaty. More importantly, Russia's expectation is that Washington must go through Moscow where Central Asia is concerned.

Russia may also be showing Washington that its positions aren't immovable — particularly where Afghanistan is concerned. Russia fears Afghanistan is collapsing into anarchy, leading to instability or Islamic radicals migrating northward through Central Asia.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Russia had agreed days earlier to allow transit of U.S. non-lethal supplies to Afghanistan.

"We are now waiting for the American partners to provide a specific request with a quantity and description of cargo," Lavrov said Friday in remarks broadcast by Vesti-24 TV. "As soon as they do that we will issue relevant permissions."

He and other officials did not say whether the U.S. will be offered air or land transit corridors. Any new transit routes are unlikely to make up for the loss of Manas, home to tanker planes that refuel warplanes flying over Afghanistan as well as airlifts and medical evacuation operations.

The Kremlin last year signed a framework deal with NATO for transit of non-lethal cargo for coalition forces in Afghanistan and has allowed some alliance members, including Germany, France and Spain, to move supplies across its territory.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Igor Lyakin-Frolov said Germany has been using air and land routes and France so far only has used air transit.

Ground routes through Russia would likely cross into Kazakhstan and then Uzbekistan before entering northern Afghanistan.

The U.S. has reached a preliminary deal with Kazakhstan to use its territory and officials have said they are considering resuming military cooperation with Uzbekistan, which neighbors Afghanistan.

That option is problematic for Washington: Uzbekistan kicked U.S. forces out of a base there after sharp U.S. criticism of the country's human rights record and the government's brutal quashing of a 2005 uprising.

Renewing those ties would also open the United States to new accusations it is working with an authoritarian government that tortures its citizens. Uzbekistan has also in the past faced a low-level insurgency from Islamic radicals, though a government crackdown has quelled much of it.

U.S. officials have repeatedly said talks with Kyrgyzstan on the Manas base are still ongoing. U.S. State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid suggested Friday that Kyrgyz officials may be divided over whether to close the base, a source of income for the impoverished nation.

"They've not told us they reached a final decision," Duguid said.

Kyrgyzstan's parliament delayed a vote on the government's decision until next week, and some Kyrgyz officials have indicated they may be willing to discuss the issue with the United States.

But National Security Council chief Adakhan Madumarov said Friday the decision to close the base was final.

"There is no doubt the bill to revoke the basing agreement will be ratified," he said. "The fate of the air base has been sealed."

In a separate development, Tajikistan's president pledged Friday that his government would allow the transit of non-military supplies to coalition troops based in neighboring Afghanistan.

Still, Tajik routes are unlikely to greatly affect U.S. supplies because the mountainous country is hard to traverse by land and it already allows U.S. overflights.

Obama considering at least 2 Iraq withdrawal plans

By ROBERT BURNS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – The White House is considering at least two troop withdrawal options as it weighs a new Iraq strategy — one that would preserve President Barack Obama's campaign pledge to get all combat brigades out within 16 months and a second that would stretch it to 23 months, two officials said Friday.

A third, in-between option of 19 months is also being weighed, according to the officials, neither of whom would discuss the sensitive topic without being granted anonymity. One of the officials said the main focus appears to be on the 16-month and 23-month options; 23 months would run to the end of 2010.

Under either timeline, the U.S. would hope to leave behind a number of brigades that would be redesigned and reconfigured as multipurpose units to provide training and advising for Iraqi security forces, one official said. These brigades would be considered noncombat outfits and their presence would have to be agreed in advance by the Iraqi government, which under a deal signed late last year insisted that all U.S. forces — not just combat brigades — be out of Iraq by the end of 2011.

Obama has said his Iraq policy will include leaving a residual U.S. military force of unspecified composition and size in Iraq and in the region to conduct counter-terrorism missions against al-Qaida in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. He has said they will not build permanent bases in Iraq but will continue training and supporting Iraqi security forces "as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism."

The concept of the stay-behind training and advising brigades has been well developed, the official said, although the details such as their size and makeup are in an early stage of being sorted out.

At the White House's request, top military officials recently offered an assessment of the risks associated with the 16-, 19- and 23-month withdrawal timetables, without saying which is preferred. Obama's top two defense advisers, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, have not yet provided a formal recommendation to the president on a timetable, an official said.

It is possible that Obama will ask for similar assessments of other withdrawal timetables before deciding on a way ahead.

A senior administration official said Friday, without commenting on the timetables under consideration, that the White House and senior military commanders "are coming to a meeting of the minds" on troop withdrawals and on the need for a diplomatic and political strategy to end U.S. involvement in the war and to ease the strain on troops and their families.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, said it likely would be a matter of "weeks, not months" before Obama is ready to announce his decisions on an Iraq strategy.

McClatchy Newspapers was first to report Friday that the White House had received risk assessments associated with 16-, 19- and 23-month drawdown options.

Obama must weigh a number of risks in deciding how fast to pull out the 14 combat brigades that are now in Iraq, including the political risk associated with abandoning his campaign pledge to get out within 16 months.

The calculation is complex and tied to other concerns: relieving stress on war-weary troops and their families; tradeoffs in escalating the war in Afghanistan, and being ready for popup crises elsewhere.

The pace and sequencing of a troop pullout will have implications for preserving recent gains in reducing violence in Iraq. An erosion of security could in turn halt progress toward political reconciliation, raising once again the prospect of widespread sectarian warfare and a new crisis for Obama.

Also at issue is how to ensure proper protection for U.S. civilians, such as State Department members of military-civilian teams supporting Iraqi economic and political rebuilding, as the U.S. military presence shrinks. That civilian work, including the role of international non-governmental groups, will arguably grow in importance as the Iraqis focus less on fighting insurgents and more on building national unity.

The fact that Obama did not immediately order his generals to begin withdrawing — as some might have expected, given his emphasis during the campaign on refocusing the U.S. military on Afghanistan — is evidence that he recognized, even before assuming office Jan. 20, the dangers of a precipitous withdrawal.

During Obama's first meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon last week, he did not mention a 16-month timeline, according to officials who were present.

U.S. military commanders in Iraq — and some senior military leaders in the Pentagon — still wonder whether the Iraqi security forces will be ready this year to handle what remains of the insurgency without substantial U.S. combat assistance. If they are not, and if a U.S. pullout accelerates, what will happen?

That question may be most important in northern Iraq, where the insurgency is still viable in the Tigris River city of Mosul and where ethnic tensions between Arabs and Kurds are high around the city of Kirkuk.

Maj. Gen. Robert Caslen, the senior U.S. commander in northern Iraq, told the AP it is too early to know how long U.S. forces will be required there, noting that conditions are fluid.

"The north provides a unique set of issues that requires the services of each and every (U.S. military) unit to its fullest extent," Caslen said. "And as long as the AQI (al-Qaida in Iraq) insurgency remains buried in places like Mosul" and until ethnic disputes are resolved in places like Kirkuk, "we will continue to be needed in this area in order to maintain the same level of risk."

Rise of the moderates

Out of the rubble of Gaza, global Jewish dissent could be emerging as a more potent force

Antony Lerman

Each and every Jew who protested as a Jew against the Gaza war had a personal Jewish imperative for doing so. Some simply expressed dismay; most demanded action to end the carnage. To say that we failed is neither an expression of despair nor a statement that dissent wasn't worthwhile. Realism suggests that it was inevitable.

Let's be clear: diaspora and Israeli Jewish support for the war was extensive - and extremely dispiriting. It raises the question: critical Jewish voices may have increased, but can we ever trigger decisive change in mainstream Jewish opinion? An unsentimental look at developments may give reason for hope.

First, there's been activity in many countries and support for Jewish peace groups has increased. European Jews for a Just Peace, a 10-country federation of such organizations, reports numerous initiatives in Europe. Independent Jewish Voices, Jews for Justice for Palestinians and other UK groups demonstrated, lobbied, placed newspaper ads and joined demonstrations. IJV groups in Canada and Australia issued statements. Jewish and Israeli protesters in Toronto, Montreal and Boston occupied Israeli consulates. US peace groups have been increasingly active. Together with activity by Israeli groups, this amounts to an undercurrent of protest that is rattling establishment Jewish leadership.

Second, some groups of Jews have taken significant stands. On 11 January, the Observer made front-page news of a letter from rabbis, academics and prominent community figures at the centre of UK Jewish life, calling for a ceasefire. In Germany, a letter from 35 supporters of the group Jewish Voice for a Just Peace, demanding an end to "the murder in Gaza", was published on 17 January in the Süddeutsche Zeitung - a major newspaper in a country where expressing public criticism of Israel is difficult for anyone, let alone a group of Jews.

But most significant was the strong anti-war stand taken by J Street, the new American liberal "pro-peace, pro-Israel" lobby, which is effectively challenging the influential, rightwing Israel lobby Aipac. Heavily criticized by Rabbi Eric Yoffie, a prominent US peace camp leader, for being "profoundly out of touch with Jewish sentiment", J Street stuck to its guns and attracted increased support. It then warmly welcomed President Obama's appointment of George Mitchell as Middle East envoy, positioning itself to have clout in Washington. The positive consequences for further legitimizing Jewish dissent in the US and beyond could be crucial.

Third, there are signs of underlying disquiet in the middle ground of normally solid pro-Israel Jewish opinion. On 2 January, Anshel Pfeffer wrote in Ha'aretz: "Extremely disturbed and hurt by the level of civilian deaths and destruction ... [these Jews] say, there must, there has to be another way of doing this. And they live with those doubts, often unexpressed, even among families and close friends, because the worst thing they find is that others around them don't seem to discern between the different nuances, and can't find in themselves compassion for the dead and wounded on the other side." Pfeffer is not alone in sensing this mood, which suggests Israel is perilously close to the line beyond which even some of its strongest supporters cannot go.

Two encouraging conclusions can be drawn. First, although it seems most Jews shrink from the truth and embrace the Orwellian "war is peace" propaganda, doubts are growing. For Jewish dissenters who seek an appropriate language to persuade mainstream Jewish opinion that Israel is going in the wrong direction, the effort may produce results.

Second, dissenting peace groups can be stubbornly independent and make a virtue out of minor differences. But effective coordination during the Gaza war proved empowering. It's surely worthwhile attempting to create a critical mass, united around key objectives, and expressed in language that can connect with mainstream Jewish opinion.

Israel is heavily dependent on what Jews think. Its leaders turn to their support whenever they face an internal crisis or need cover for some new military adventure. But it's now not too far-fetched to think Jewish opinion could turn decisively against Israel's current path. This would shake the government and help change Middle East realities. So, out of the rubble of Gaza and the political failure it represents, Jewish dissent may emerge a more potent force.

A final cautionary note: Jewish opposition to the Gaza war was not qualitatively different from anyone else's. And it's not more important than the horrendous experience of the people of Gaza. But were that opposition to be translated into a rolling tide of Jewish opinion, it may have a moderating influence on Israel. This would benefit Palestinians, who deserve an immediate end to siege and occupation, and Jews, who deserve an immediate end to the antisemitism, highlighted in these pages by Jonathan Freedland, which Israel's war has provoked. And ultimately lead to an Israel living in peace with its neighbors.

Egypt prevents Hamas taking millions into Gaza

EL-ARISH, Egypt (AFP) - Egyptian authorities on Thursday prevented a senior Hamas official carrying nine million dollars and two million euros in cash entering Gaza via Rafah, a security official told AFP.

Border official had held up a six-member delegation on its way back from truce talks in Cairo after insisting that they search their bags.

The officials allowed five members to cross, but prevented Gaza-based Hamas spokesman Ayman Taha, who was carrying nine million dollars and two million euros, from crossing into Gaza with the money.

"There are contacts with the finance ministry to decide whether to allow the money in," the official said.

Hamas officials crossed several times into Gaza with large amounts of money after winning parliamentary elections in 2006, but this was the first attempt made since Hamas seized Gaza from rivals Fatah in June 2007, the official said.

In December 2006, Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniya was forced to leave 35 million dollars at the Egyptian side of Rafah. The money was then transferred to a Palestinian Authority account.

Egypt on Thursday closed the Rafah crossing to all but exceptional cases after opening it to aid and wounded Palestinians during Israel's war on Hamas .

"No humanitarian, media or medical delegations will be allowed through, nor will medical aid deliveries be permitted," a border official told AFP, while "foreign delegations" who entered Gaza from Egypt would also be allowed to return.

Egypt allowed aid and medical supplies as well as some doctors and journalists into the Gaza Strip during Israel's devastating 22-day offensive on the territory which ended with unilateral ceasefires on January 18.

Egypt has refused to permanently open the crossing in the absence of EU monitors and representatives of Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas after Hamas ousted his forces from the territory when it took over Gaza.

Israel, which controls all Gaza crossings except Rafah, has since kept the densely populated territory closed off to all but essential supplies in order to put pressure on Hamas, which it labels a terrorist organization.

Egypt has been mediating a lasting truce in and around the territory that would satisfy Israel's demand for an end to smuggling through tunnels from Egypt and Hamas's demand for the reopening of Gaza's borders.

Cairo had proposed February 5 as a start date for a such a long-term truce, with Hamas saying it would send a delegation back to Cairo on Saturday to give its "final" response to Egypt's proposal.

U.S., Nine Allies Work on Plan to Stop Gun Smuggling to Gaza

By Christian Wienberg

Feb. 5 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. and nine other countries are working on measures, including the use of warships, to stop the smuggling of weapons to Hamas in Gaza to prevent the conflict with Israel from flaring up again.

Officials held a two-day meeting in Copenhagen to discuss possible solutions, Michael Zilmer-Johns, of Denmark’s foreign ministry, told reporters today in the Danish capital.

Most of the 10 countries agreed that the use of warships in international waters in the region would be necessary, said a senior diplomat, who asked not to be identified. He declined to say which countries opposed military use.

Israel carried out a 22-day offensive against Hamas that the military said was aimed at ending cross-border rocket attacks. At least 1,375 Palestinians died in the conflict, according to the Gaza emergency services department. Thirteen Israelis died, the Israeli army said. The operation ended Jan. 18 with unilateral cease-fires declared by both sides.

The 10 countries, which include Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the U.K., will present “a document of solutions,” next month in London after further talks, Zilmer-Johns said. Israeli observers participated in the meetings, while Egypt, which was invited to send observers, declined to attend, he said.

Israel seizes Gaza freighter; no arms aboard

By Amir Cohen

ASHDOD, Israel (Reuters) – The Israeli navy boarded a freighter trying to break the blockade of the Gaza Strip on Thursday and escorted it to the port of Ashdod where 20 passengers were being questioned, the military said.

It was the first apparent attempt by a foreign ship carrying aid to reach the Palestinian coastal enclave since Israel ended its 22-day offensive in the Gaza Strip two weeks ago.

A military official said humanitarian aid found on the ship would be transferred to the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. Video footage released by the army showed boxes piled up in one corner of the ship and no weapons were found.

Israel Radio said those aboard the Tali, a cargo vessel flying the flag of the West African state of Togo, would be returned by land to Lebanon, from where the ship sailed. The military official said the ship's 20 passengers, including 10 journalists, were being questioned.

"Once the questioning is completed we will make a decision on their fate," a military spokesman said.

A military source said the passengers also included a veteran Palestinian rights campaigner, Syrian-born Archbishop Hilarion Capucci of the Melkite Church of the Eastern Rite.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said the navy had initially allowed the ship to sail to Egypt but its captain made a sudden U-turn toward Gaza's shore after which the navy boarded the vessel and ordered it to sail to Ashdod.

Qatar-based Al Jazeera television quoted a correspondent aboard the vessel as saying an Israeli navy ship had fired shots and then sailors boarded the Tali and beat passengers and crew.

"They are opening fire toward the vessel...there are Israeli soldiers who have actually boarded the vessel," said correspondent Salam Khoder. "Three of them are pointing their weapons at us...They are beating those on the vessel, they are beating and kicking us."

Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora condemned the action.

"Those who commit massacres against innocent civilians in Lebanon and Gaza will not stop themselves from assaulting, in front of the world, a ship carrying humanitarian supplies," he said. "I express my utmost condemnation for this blatant attack."

'ACT OF PIRACY'

At the United Nations, Lebanese envoy Caroline Ziade called on the Security Council for international action to press Israel to release the ship immediately. Arab League Ambassador Yahya Mahmassani condemned the "act of piracy" and said he had received assurances of U.N. efforts to get the ship returned.

The army said no gunfire was used in taking control of the vessel and most of the 20 passengers aboard were from media organizations. But it said warning shots were fired in the air when the ship tried to sail toward the Gaza Strip.

Al Jazeera said the ship, dubbed Brotherhood by activists, was carrying humanitarian aid from Lebanese and Arab charities for those made homeless by Israel's devastating offensive.

It was sent by the Palestinian National Committee Against the Siege in cooperation with the U.S.-based Free Gaza Movement, and the cargo included about 60 tonnes of medicine, food and toys, plus 10,000 units of human blood plasma which requires constant refrigeration.

Israel maintains tight control of Gaza's access to the outside world, insisting it will not permit shipment of cash, steel or other materials that could be used by Hamas Islamists, who control the enclave, to make weapons.

Sympathizers of Gaza's 1.5 million Palestinians have tried several times in past months to break the Israeli blockade. Some boats with peace activists were allowed to dock, others were warned off.