"Analysis: While Israel fights in Gaza, Egypt and Saudi Arabia take on Iran"

[absent]

Israel's campaign in Gaza is serving to expose the strategic fault lines in the Arab and Muslim world.
The essential divide is between, on the one hand, states aligned with the West - chief among them Egypt and Saudi Arabia - and on the other an alliance led by Iran, of which Hamas forms a part. Israel's action in Gaza has led to unprecedented tensions between representatives of these rival blocs. Because of the strategic importance of Egyptian control of the Rafah Crossing, this divide also has immediate practical implications for the direction and likely outcome of the current battle.

On Sunday, Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah focused on the events in Gaza in a speech on al-Manar TV. Nasrallah did not limit himself to calling down fire and brimstone on Israel.

Rather, he singled out Egypt for criticism. Nasrallah echoed Hamas condemnation of Egypt for refusing to allow a general opening of the Rafah Crossing. The Hizbullah leader expressed incredulity at a statement by a senior Egyptian official holding Hamas ultimately responsible for events in Gaza. Likening Hamas in Gaza to the Shi'ite forces at the battle of Karbala (a central event in Shi'ite history), he demanded that the people of Egypt take action and force the opening of the crossing. He said that the Egyptian police would be unable to prevent this. Nasrallah noted that the opening of the crossing would enable Hamas to bring in supplies and hold out.

He reiterated these remarks on Monday, in a speech (conveyed by video link) to a seething demonstration in Beirut.

Nasrallah's statement is deeply significant. For the first time, the Iran-aligned Hizbullah leader appeared to be calling for an open revolt against an Arab government as part of the fight against Israel. His words followed a declaration, much noted in the Arab media, by Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leader Muhammad Mahdi Akef, in which he expressed his solidarity with Iran, and his endorsement of Shi'ite expansion in the Arab and Islamic world.
The Egyptian government was not slow to respond to Nasrallah's apparent call for Egyptian citizens to rise up against it. Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit said that the Egyptian armed forces existed to defend Egypt. He added, addressing Nasrallah directly, that "if need be, they will also protect Egypt from people like you."

The prospect of Egypt's finding itself pilloried by pro-Iranian forces in the event of a clash between Israel and Hamas in Gaza was foreseen prior to the operation. Arab countries aligned with the west have in the past quietly backed Israel in its confrontations with Iranian proxy forces. This time, because of the close proximity and the Egyptian control of Rafah, no such ambiguity was possible.

In the event, Egypt nevertheless made clear that it was prepared for the crossing to be opened to allow wounded Palestinians to leave for treatment and medical personnel to enter. Hamas demonstratively declined this offer. Egyptian sources have reported that a convoy of trucks and medical supplies was not allowed by Hamas to enter the Strip. Hamas personnel also prevented wounded Gazan civilians from crossing the border.

Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said that Hamas rejected the idea that only Palestinian 'corpses' should be permitted to leave. (Such actions and statements on the part of Hamas offer a useful reflection of the movement's and its allies' attitude toward their own civilians.) Hamas would like to use the southern border in order to bring in supplies (and, tacitly, weaponry) in case of an extended Israeli operation in Gaza, including the involvement of ground forces. Such a capacity could be of strategic importance to Hamas in determining the outcome of the present battle. Despite stormy demonstrations in Cairo and elsewhere, the Mubarak regime in Egypt has held out against these demands and is likely - with US encouragement - to continue to do so.

These latest events bring home the extent to which events in Gaza cannot be understood in isolation from the broader regional picture. Some analysts are maintaining that the Hamas escalation in Gaza which preceded the current operation was the result of a coordinated Iranian initiative.

Whether or not this claim has substance, it is a fact that the logic of Egyptian interests, plus Nasrallah's incendiary statements in Beirut, is serving as a kind of spotlight on the actual current strategic dispensation in the region - one which it is often convenient for Arab ruling elites to deny or blur.

It is likely that Hamas's accusations against Egypt - to the effect that Cairo was aware of an impending Israeli operation and took part in the deception preceding it - are largely correct.

At the same time, the desire to keep Egypt 'onside' may also play a role in limiting the dimensions of the current Israeli operation. Ultimately, the presence of an Iranian enclave between Egypt and Israel is a situation which neither country can accept. For the moment, however, all indications remain that the current operation is intended to bring about a renewed lull - probably through Egyptian mediation - rather than a mortal blow against the Hamas regime in Gaza.

Jonathan Spyer is a senior researcher at the Global Research in International Affairs Center, IDC, Herzliya.

THE JERUSALEM POST, Le 31/12/2008

[djamal 2008]

Tout le monde est coupable sauf Israël à en croire ces traites du gouvernement: Le Hezbollah, le Hamas, l'Iran, les enfants, les vieux, les femmes et même les gens qui protestent sont mal vus.

[absent]

Moha

Cette petite démonstration m'a fait voir que les seules Hommes, les seules personnes qui défendront l'islam et les arabes sont le hezbollah, le Hamas, et l'Iran. Ceux qui sont mal vus. Par contre, je n'ai plus confiance en l'Egypte, en l'Arabie saoudite, en l'Algérie, en la tunisie ..........., ceux qui sont biens vus.
Le monde est lâche.

[absent]

Pour le coup, l'Algérie est un pays qui a montré un soutien sans faille à la Palestine. Par certaines de nos positions, nous sommes plus palestiniens que certains officiels...Palestiniens.
Personnellement j'ai posté l'article sans trop savoir comment le prendre:
- Est-ce de la propagande interne en Israël pour rassurer les israéliens ?
- Est-ce que c'est de la propagande interne et externe pour préparer une guerre contre l'Iran ?
- Ou est-ce que ça met vraiment le doigts sur un renversement d'alliance aux Moyen-Orient ?

[Zakia]

questions pour répondre aux questions

- Est-ce de la propagande interne en Israël pour rassurer les israéliens ?
J'ai un peu de ma à comprendre en quoi un éventuel conflit entre pro-iraniens et égyptiens serait de nature à rassurer les israéliens?

- Est-ce que c'est de la propagande interne et externe pour préparer une guerre contre l'Iran ?
Même question qu'au-dessus. Mais également : quel intérêt de partir en guerre contre l'Iran en ce moment et par qui seraient-ils soutenus? Par les américains? J'ai dans l'idée que leurs préoccupations actuelles sont d'un autre ordre et autrement plus criantes. En outre, je doute que les russes se contentent de jouer les observateurs en cas de conflit...ils n'ont pas pour habitude d'accepter longtemps qu'on piétine leurs plates-bandes...d'un point de vue géostratégique, ils n'accepteront jamais que les américains viennent fiche sérieusement leur nez dans la région. S'ils sont restés silencieux quant à l'Afghanistan et l'Irak, c'est qu'ils savaient dans quel bourbier les américains s'enfonçaient, outre le fait que les 2 pays ne sont pas dangereux sur le plan armement. Un conflit avec l'Iran par contre, risque de déstabiliser définitivement la région, ce qui ne fera pas leurs affaires.

- Ou est-ce que ça met vraiment le doigts sur un renversement d'alliance aux Moyen-Orient ?
C'est un point intéressant. Ce sera probablement le cas si l'abcès n'est pas crevé une bonne fois pour toutes et qu'on arrête de pourrir un conflit déjà passablement complexe et dont les origines remontent à bien plus loin qu'il n'est dit.
Quel serait le principal bénéficiaire? Et quelles seraient les nouvelles alliances?
A propos de l'expansion du chiisme, quelqu'un a des chiffres?

[absent]

réponses aux questions introductives

J'ai un peu de ma à comprendre en quoi un éventuel conflit entre pro-iraniens et égyptiens serait de nature à rassurer les israéliens?

ça permettrait de donner l'illusion d'un consensus anti-iranien, de se débarrasser du Hezbollah à moindre frais, et de préparer l'opinion publique internationale (ce n'est pas une énième guerre USA/Israël mais une résolution internationale...etc.).

Même question qu'au-dessus. Mais également : quel intérêt de partir en guerre contre l'Iran en ce moment et par qui seraient-ils soutenus? Par les américains?

Pour faire vite, nous assistons à un nouveau partage du monde. L'Iran pose des problèmes dans le nouveau découpage, ils doivent y passer comme les syriens d'ailleurs.

Les russes ne vont pas intervenir, ils ont implicitement négocié leur zone d'influence sur laquelle les américains n'interviendront jamais directement (on l'a vu lors de la guerre de Géorgie).

C'est un point intéressant. Ce sera probablement le cas si l'abcès n'est pas crevé une bonne fois pour toutes et qu'on arrête de pourrir un conflit déjà passablement complexe et dont les origines remontent à bien plus loin qu'il n'est dit.

A mon avis, nous sommes plutôt dans le "dévoilement" des alliances: l'Egypte et certaines pétro-monorchies ont toujours été montré du doigt pour leur implication pro-américaines dans la région.

[ETTARGUI]

La télévision egyptienne a présenté il y a deux jours une analyse qui corrobore le contenu de cet article, et qui met l'accent de l'implication de l'Iran dans le conflit via ses alliés : la syrie, le Hezbollah et le Hamas. Le danger Chiite est souligné.
Un tel discours n'a plus de prise sur les masses musulmanes, tout le monde sait que le Hamas est sunnite ainsi que les dirigeants syriens et que le conflit oppose les musulmans, toutes obédiences confondues, à la barbarie des israéliens.
Continuer à tenir un tel discours, c'est faire le jeu - cousu de fil blanc - des américains et israéliens.

[absent]

Egyptians blame Hamas, yet are angry at Cairo as well

Seule la première partie me semble intéressante, mais je poste le tout:

Cairo: A sustained Israeli ground operation in Gaza would sharply increase public pressure on President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt to do more to help the Palestinians of Gaza, despite widespread feelings here that the radical group Hamas provoked the current crisis.

While few criticize Mubarak himself, there is unhappiness with the government's relative silence about Israel's bombing campaign and its Palestinian victims, and the apparent lack of diplomatic pressure from Cairo on Israel and the United States to stop the fighting.

Instead, government officials from Mubarak to Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit have blamed Hamas for abandoning the cease-fire with Israel and seeming to seek Israeli retaliation. On Thursday, for example, Aboul Gheit said that Egypt had warned Hamas of Israel's intentions, but Hamas "served Israel the opportunity on a golden platter to hit Gaza."

Egypt has long been a leader of the Arab world and the main "confrontation" state with Israel, and in the wars of 1948-49, 1967 and 1973, it shed copious blood to try to defeat Israel in the name of Arab nationalism and a Palestinian state. But Anwar Sadat saw Egypt's national interest in a peace with Israel and was assassinated for it by Islamic radicals. Those arrested afterward included Ayman al-Zawahiri, who later became Osama bin Laden's deputy.

Sadat's successor, Mubarak, has successfully negotiated the complicated issues of regional security, solidifying a relationship with Washington, maintaining cool but correct ties with Israel and helping to keep down Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. But it is a complicated exercise, said Abdel Moneim Said, director of Cairo's Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies.

Given continuing Israeli occupation of some land seized in 1967, the split among Palestinians and a Gaza controlled by the Islamic radical movement Hamas, the Egyptian government "must make difficult choices," he said.

"Egypt is working for peace while trying to work realistically with the situation in Gaza, where a radical group took over the territories next to Sinai, a sensitive subject for Egypt," Said continued. "So Egypt is trying to support Palestinian humanitarian needs, but not allow a radical group to control the situation, dominate the Palestinian issue or affect Egyptian internal politics."

But such complications are not easy for ordinary Egyptians to balance, especially when they see constant repetition of Israeli bombs and Palestinian dead on Al Jazeera.

More damaging, there is a widespread belief that Egypt was complicit in the Israeli attacks. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni of Israel visited Cairo the day before the assault began. Traditionally, Israel warns Cairo secretly before taking important military action in Gaza. But the pictures of Mubarak smiling and shaking hands with Livni have fueled popular speculation that Egypt was aware of the impending attack and even approved it, in order to chop back the power of Hamas.

"There is a lot of popular anger over the position of the government, especially that the Israeli foreign minister was here less than 24 hours before the attacks," said Rania Al Malki, chief editor of Daily News Egypt. "People are putting two and two together and accusing Egypt of complicity. That's a popular feeling."

It is a charge made loudly by Iranian allies like Hamas and Hezbollah, and slightly less loudly by Syria, which have accused Egypt of partial responsibility for Palestinian deaths by its refusal to open up its border with Gaza. There have been a few attacks on Egyptian diplomatic posts and some, like the Hezbollah leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, have called on Egyptians to rise up and break down the border themselves.

There have been a series of demonstrations organized by the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo, relatively large but controlled by the police, which have demanded more action for Gazans. In return for being allowed to demonstrate, analysts said, organizers quickly silenced chants criticizing Mubarak himself.

While Cairo residents interviewed Friday resented the criticism from other Arabs as unfair and unjustified, citing Egyptian aid to Palestinian victims, they were also uneasy with Cairo's open blame of Hamas and failure to criticize Israel more loudly. Nearly everyone interviewed watches Al Jazeera and praised it for its realistic, if bloody coverage of Gaza, contrasting it to the tame stuff shown on national television.

"What Egypt is doing is far from enough," said Gabr Imam Hanef, 57, who runs a parking lot in the poor northwestern district of Cairo around the Sayyida Zeinab mosque. "Hosni Mubarak has to go to Gaza and talk to Hamas and stand up with them in support, and then he has to talk to the Israelis."

Hanef said that Mubarak is a good man who has kept Egypt at peace, "but he is not doing all he can." There is not enough pressure on Israel and Washington, he said, and he thought that the demonstrations in Cairo should continue.

[absent]

Suite du post:

We need to stand up and put pressure on the government so it moves and does something," he said. "The government will listen. The demonstrations will wake them up."

At the same time, there is a kind of fatigue with the Palestinians and their problems and with the idea that Egypt should fight wars for other Arabs who are distant from the conflict.

"I'm very angry at the reaction of Arab countries to Egypt, which has been standing with the Palestinians since 1948," said Sayed Abdel Rafar, 58, smoking a pipe with his friends at a café. "No one has done more for them, and now Arab nations mock us and say we aren't doing enough."

"It's those Arab nations who aren't strong enough to do anything against Israel and want Egypt to do it for them."

Rafar, a lawyer, fought in the 1967 war. "I've seen war, and we don't want our children to go through what we did," he said. "We have a strong military, but if we're going to war, we're going to defend our country."

Muhammad Omar, 52, said: "These are people who live with words only. They haven't been in our place; they haven't seen what Egypt has seen. And they are often the richest countries, with no trouble eating, while we give the Palestinians food when there are Egyptians who are hungry."

Hamdan Abdel Hafiz, the café waiter, broke in. "We live from pound to pound," he said, referring to the Egyptian currency, worth 18 U.S. cents. "If we get a pound we eat."

Those demanding that Egypt open the Gaza border do not understand the dangers, said Samir Abdel Haadi. "If we opened it, we'd be the Iraq of the Palestinians," he said. "There will be terrorism in the Sinai, and that's our country."

Malki, the editor, said that the government was making it clear it wanted Hamas to fail. "They're afraid of the internal situation," she said. "They don't want a successful Islamic or Muslim Brotherhood experiment on their own border."

But she warned that unpopularity should not be confused with weakness. "The perception of the government in the feelings of the masses is deteriorating," she said. "But their power and ability to contain whatever dissent may come out has not been shaken in the least."

Steven Erlanger, International Herald Tribune