Category: USA

Turkey could be America’s most important regional ally, above Iraq, even above Israel, if both sides manage the relationship correctly.

  • The American-Western European Values Gap

    The American-Western European Values Gap

    American Exceptionalism Subsides

    The American-Western European Values Gap

    UPDATED FEBRUARY 29, 2012

    Survey Report

    As has long been the case, American values differ from those of Western Europeans in many important ways. Most notably, Americans are more individualistic and are less supportive of a strong safety net than are the publics of Britain, France, Germany and Spain. Americans are also considerably more religious than Western Europeans, and are more socially conservative with respect to homosexuality.

    Americans are somewhat more inclined than Western Europeans to say that it is sometimes necessary to use military force to maintain order in the world. Moreover, Americans more often than their Western European allies believe that obtaining UN approval before their country uses military force would make it too difficult to deal with an international threat. And Americans are less inclined than the Western Europeans, with the exception of the French, to help other nations.

    These differences between Americans and Western Europeans echo findings from previous surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center. However, the current polling shows the American public is coming closer to Europeans in not seeing their culture as superior to that of other nations. Today, only about half of Americans believe their culture is superior to others, compared with six-in-ten in 2002. And the polling finds younger Americans less apt than their elders to hold American exceptionalist attitudes.

    These are among the findings from a survey by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project, conducted in the U.S., Britain, France, Germany and Spain from March 21 to April 14 as part of the broader 23-nation poll in spring 2011.

    Use of Military Force

    Three-quarters of Americans agree that it is sometimes necessary to use military force to maintain order in the world; this view is shared by seven-in-ten in Britain and narrower majorities in France and Spain (62% each). Germans are evenly divided, with half saying the use of force is sometimes necessary and half saying it is not.

    Germans are more supportive of the use of military force than they have been in recent years. For example, in 2007, just about four-in-ten (41%) Germans agreed that it was sometimes necessary, while 58% disagreed. Opinions have been more stable in the U.S., Britain and France.

    For the most part, opinions about the use of force do not vary considerably across demographic groups. In Germany and Spain, however, support for the use of military force is far more widespread among men than among women. Six-in-ten German men agree that it is sometimes necessary to use military force to maintain order in the world, compared with just 40% of women. And while majorities across gender groups in Spain believe the use of force may be necessary, more Spanish men than Spanish women say this is the case (68% vs. 56%).

    In Britain, France, Spain and the U.S., conservatives, or those on the political right, are more likely than liberals, or those on the left, to agree that the use of force is sometimes necessary to maintain world order. However, in the four countries, majorities across ideological groups express this view.1

    When asked whether their country should have UN approval before using military force to deal with international threats, American opinion differs considerably from that of Western Europeans. Americans are almost evenly divided on the question, with 45% saying that the U.S. should have UN approval while 44% say this would make it too difficult to deal with threats; in contrast, solid majorities in the four Western European nations surveyed, including about three-quarters in Spain (74%) and Germany (76%) say their country should have UN approval before it takes military action.

    In Western Europe, those with a college degree are more likely than those with less education to say their country should have UN approval before using military force, although majorities across both groups share this view. For example, in Spain, 84% of those who graduated from college say UN approval should be obtained, compared with 70% of those who do not have a college degree. Double-digit differences are also evident in Britain (15 percentage points), Germany (11 points) and France (10 points). This is not the case in the U.S., where respondents across education groups offer nearly identical views.

    In Germany, gender differences are also notable; even though German men are more likely than women to say the use of military force is sometimes necessary, more men than women say their country should have UN approval before using force (83% vs. 70%).

    The view that their country should have UN approval before using military force to deal with threats is far more prevalent among American liberals than among conservatives. Close to six-in-ten (57%) liberals favor obtaining UN approval, while 33% say this would make it too difficult for the U.S. to deal with threats; in contrast, most conservatives (52%) say getting UN approval would make it too difficult to deal with threats, while 38% say this is an important step. Political moderates fall between the other two groups, with 49% saying the U.S. should seek the approval of the UN before using military force and 42% saying this would make it too difficult to deal with threats. The same ideological difference is generally not evident in Western Europe.

    Views on International Engagement

    About four-in-ten (39%) Americans say the U.S. should help other countries deal with their problems, while a narrow majority (52%) says the U.S. should deal with its own problems and let other countries deal with their problems as best they can. In this regard, Americans are not drastically different from respondents in France, where 43% believe their country should help other countries and 57% say it should focus on its own problems.

    The British are nearly evenly divided; 45% say their country should help other countries deal with their problems and about the same number (48%) believe Britain should deal with its own problems.

    Compared with the U.S., France and Britain, Spain and Germany stand out as the only countries where majorities favor international engagement: 55% and 54%, respectively, say their countries should provide assistance to others, while 40% in Spain and 43% in Germany take the more isolationist view.

    Opinions about international engagement have changed somewhat in the U.S., France and Spain since last year, but while publics in the two Western European countries are now more in favor of helping others than they were in 2010, more Americans currently take an isolationist position. Last year, about the same number of Americans said their country should help other countries (45%) as said it should let other countries deal with their own problems (46%). Similarly, the Spanish were nearly evenly divided, with 49% favoring engagement and 47% taking an isolationist approach. In France, where a majority continues to take an isolationist view, even more (65%) did so a year ago.

    In the U.S. as well as in the four Western European countries surveyed, those with a college degree are far more likely than those with less education to offer an internationalist view. This is especially the case in Germany, where about three-quarters (73%) of those who graduated from college believe their country should help other countries deal with their problems, compared with a narrow majority (52%) of those without a college degree.

    Political ideology is also a factor in Germany, France and Spain. In these three countries, those on the right are more likely than those on the left to take the isolationist view when it comes to international engagement. For example, while about half (48%) of left-wing French say their country should deal with its own problems and let other countries deal with theirs as best they can, about six-in-ten (59%) on the right offer this opinion.

    Cultural Superiority

    About half of Americans (49%) and Germans (47%) agree with the statement, “Our people are not perfect, but our culture is superior to others;” 44% in Spain share this view. In Britain and France, only about a third or fewer (32% and 27%, respectively) think their culture is better than others.

    While opinions about cultural superiority have remained relatively stable over the years in the four Western European countries surveyed, Americans are now far less likely to say that their culture is better than others; six-in-ten Americans held this belief in 2002 and 55% did so in 2007. Belief in cultural superiority has declined among Americans across age, gender and education groups.

    As in past surveys, older Americans remain far more inclined than younger ones to believe that their culture is better than others. Six-in-ten Americans ages 50 or older share this view, while 34% disagree; those younger than 30 hold the opposite view, with just 37% saying American culture is superior and 61% saying it is not. Opinions are more divided among those ages 30 to 49; 44% in this group see American culture as superior and 50% do not.

    Similar age gaps are not as common in the Western European countries surveyed, with the exception of Spain, where majorities of older respondents, but not among younger ones, also think their culture is better than others; 55% of those ages 50 or older say this is the case, compared with 34% of those ages 30 to 49 and 39% of those younger than 30.

    As is the case on other measures, opinions about cultural superiority vary considerably by educational attainment. In the four Western European countries and in the U.S., those who did not graduate from college are more likely than those who did to agree that their culture is superior, even if their people are not perfect. For example, Germans with less education are about twice as likely as those with a college degree to believe their culture is superior (49% vs. 25%); double-digit differences are also present in France (20 percentage points), Spain (18 points) and Britain (11 points), while a less pronounced gap is evident in the U.S. (9 points).

    Finally, among Americans and Germans, political conservative are especially likely to believe their culture is superior to others. In the U.S., 63% of conservatives take this view, compared with 45% of moderates and just 34% of liberals. Similarly, a majority (54%) of right-wing Germans see their culture as superior, while 47% of moderates and 33% of those on the political left agree.

    Individualism and the Role of the State

    American opinions continue to differ considerably from those of Western Europeans when it comes to views of individualism and the role of the state. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) Americans believe it is more important for everyone to be free to pursue their life’s goals without interference from the state, while just 35% say it is more important for the state to play an active role in society so as to guarantee that nobody is in need.

    In contrast, at least six-in-ten in Spain (67%), France (64%) and Germany (62%) and 55% in Britain say the state should ensure that nobody is in need; about four-in-ten or fewer consider being free from state interference a higher priority.

    In the U.S., Britain, France and Germany, views of the role of the state divide significantly across ideological lines. For example, three-quarters of American conservatives say individuals should be free to pursue their goals without interference from the state, while 21% say it is more important for the state to guarantee that nobody is in need; among liberals in the U.S., half would like the state to play an active role to help the needy, while 42% prefer a more limited role for the state.

    Those on the political right in Britain, France and Germany are also more likely than those on the left in these countries to prioritize freedom to pursue one’s goals without state interference. Unlike in the U.S., however, majorities of those on the right in France (57%) and Germany (56%) favor an active role for the state, as do more than four-in-ten (45%) conservatives in Britain.

    American opinions about the role of the state also vary considerably across age groups. About half (47%) of those younger than 30 prioritize the freedom to pursue life’s goals without interference from the state and a similar percentage (46%) say it is more important for the state to ensure that nobody is in need; among older Americans, however, about six-in-ten consider being free a higher priority, with just about three-in-ten saying the state should play an active role so that nobody is in need. No such age difference is evident in the four Western European countries surveyed.

    Asked if they agree that “success in life is pretty much determined by forces outside our control,” Americans again offer more individualistic views than those expressed by Western Europeans. Only 36% of Americans believe they have little control over their fate, compared with 50% in Spain, 57% in France and 72% in Germany; Britain is the only Western European country surveyed where fewer than half (41%) share this view.

    In the U.S. and in Western Europe, those without a college degree are less individualistic than those who have graduated from college; this is especially the case in the U.S. and Germany. About three-quarters (74%) of Germans in the less educated group believe that success in life is largely determined by forces beyond one’s control, compared with 55% of college graduates. Among Americans, 41% of those without a college degree say they have little control over their fate, while just 22% of college graduates share this view.

    Religion More Important to Americans

    Americans also distinguish themselves from Western Europeans on views about the importance of religion. Half of Americans deem religion very important in their lives; fewer than a quarter in Spain (22%), Germany (21%), Britain (17%) and France (13%) share this view.

    Moreover, Americans are far more inclined than Western Europeans to say it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values; 53% say this is the case in the U.S., compared with just one-third in Germany, 20% in Britain, 19% in Spain and 15% in France.

    In the U.S., women and older respondents place more importance on religion and are more likely than men and younger people to say that faith in God is a necessary foundation for morality and good values. About six-in-ten (59%) American women say religion is very important in their lives, compared with 41% of men; and while a majority (56%) of Americans ages 50 and older say religion is very important to them, 48% of those ages 30 to 49 and 41% of those younger than 30 place similar importance on religion.

    Similarly, while a majority of American women (58%) say it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values, men are nearly evenly divided, with 47% saying belief in God is a necessary foundation for morality and 51% saying it is not. Among Americans ages 50 and older, 58% say one must believe in God in order to be moral and have good values; 50% of those ages 30 to 49 and 46% of those younger than 30 share this view.

    Education also plays a role in views of religion in the U.S., to some extent. Although Americans with a college degree are about as likely as those without to say religion is very important to them (47% and 51%, respectively), the less educated are far more inclined to say that one must believe in God in order to be moral; 59% of those without a college degree say this, compared with 37% of those who have graduated from college.

    Views of religion and whether belief in God is a necessary foundation for morality vary little, if at all, across demographic groups in the Western European countries surveyed. In Spain, however, respondents ages 50 and older place more importance on religion than do younger people, although relatively few in this age group say it is very important to them; 33% say this is the case, compared with 16% of those ages 30 to 49 and 11% of those younger than 30.

    Politically, conservatives in the U.S., Spain and Germany are more likely than liberals to say it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values, but while solid majorities of conservatives in the U.S. (66%) take this position, fewer than half of conservatives in Spain (31%) and Germany (46%) share this view. Meanwhile, just 26% of liberals in the U.S., 11% in Spain and 19% in Germany say belief in God is a necessary foundation for morality. Conservatives in the U.S. are also far more likely than liberals to consider religion very important in their lives (67% vs. 29%); in Western Europe, few across ideological groups place high importance on religion.

    Religious vs. National Identity

    American Christians are more likely than their Western European counterparts to think of themselves first in terms of their religion rather than their nationality; 46% of Christians in the U.S. see themselves primarily as Christians and the same number consider themselves Americans first. In contrast, majorities of Christians in France (90%), Germany (70%), Britain (63%) and Spain (53%) identify primarily with their nationality rather than their religion.

    In Britain, France and Germany, more Christians now see themselves in terms of their nationality than did so five years ago, when national identification was already widespread in these countries. This change is especially notable in Germany, where the percentage seeing themselves first as Germans is up 11 percentage points, from 59% in 2006.

    Among Christians in the U.S., white evangelicals are especially inclined to identify first with their faith; 70% in this group see themselves first as Christians rather than as Americans, while 22% say they are primarily American. Among other American Christians, more identify with their nationality (55%) than with their religion (38%).

    Homosexuality

    Tolerance for homosexuality is widespread in the U.S. and Western Europe, but far more Western Europeans than Americans say homosexuality should be accepted by society; at least eight-in-ten in Spain (91%), Germany (87%), France (86%) and Britain (81%), compared with 60% in the U.S.

    Acceptance of homosexuality has increased in recent years, and the shift is especially notable in the U.S., where only slightly more said it should be accepted (49%) than said it should be rejected (41%) in 2007. Today, more Americans accept homosexuality than reject it by a 27-percentage point margin.

    While there are some differences in opinions of homosexuality across demographic groups in the Western European countries surveyed, overwhelming majorities across age, education and gender groups believe homosexuality should be accepted by society. In the U.S., however, these differences are somewhat more pronounced. For example, while 67% of American women believe homosexuality should be accepted, a much narrower majority of men (54%) share that view. Among Americans with college degrees, 71% accept homosexuality, compared with 56% of those with less education. Finally, about two-thirds (68%) of Americans younger than 30 say homosexuality should be accepted by society; 61% of those ages 30 to 40 and 55% of those ages 50 and older share this view.

    In addition to demographic differences, an ideological divide on views of homosexuality is also notable in the U.S., where more than eight-in-ten (85%) liberals and 65% of moderates express tolerant views, compared with 44% of conservatives. In the four Western European countries surveyed, at least three-quarters across ideological groups say homosexuality should be accepted by society.

    1. In the U.S., respondents were asked, “In general, would you describe your political views as very conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal or very liberal?” In Western Europe, respondents were asked, “Some people talk about politics in terms of left, center and right. On a left-right scale from 0 to 6, with 0 indicating extreme left and 6 indicating extreme right, where would you place yourself?” Throughout this report, we use the terms left/liberal and right/conservative interchangeably. In the U.S., an analysis of partisan differences shows that, for the most part, the views of Democrats align with those of liberals, while views of Republicans mirror those of conservatives; we refer to ideology rather than partisanship for a more direct comparison between Americans and Western Europeans. ↩

    2011 VALUES0014

    Source :

  • Dallas Museum Volunteers to Return Mosaic to Turkey – NYTimes.com

    Dallas Museum Volunteers to Return Mosaic to Turkey – NYTimes.com

    03artsbeat turkey blog480

    Dallas Museum Volunteers to Return Mosaic to Turkey

    By RANDY KENNEDY

    The mosaic is to be returned to Turkey.Dallas Museum of Art The mosaic is to be returned to Turkey.

    The Dallas Museum of Art voluntarily returned an ancient marble mosaic in its collection to Turkey on Monday, after determining that the work — which dates from A.D. 194 and shows Orpheus taming animals with his lyre — was probably stolen years ago from a Turkish archaeological site.

    The decision, part of a new plan by the museum to court exchange agreements with foreign institutions more actively, comes at a time when the Turkish government has become more aggressive in seeking antiquities it believes were looted from its soil. In recent months it has pressed the Metropolitan Museum of Art and several other museums around the world to return objects and, to increase its leverage, it has refused loan requests to some.

    The Met says that the objects sought by Turkey were legally acquired in the European antiquities market in the 1960s before being donated to the museum in 1989.

    Other museums have accused Turkey of undue intimidation. Last year the Pergamon Museum in Berlin returned a 3,000-year-old sphinx, which Turkey said had been taken to Germany for restoration in 1917. But German officials say Turkey has continued to deny loans of objects for exhibitions because of claims to other objects in the Pergamon collection.

    The Dallas mosaic, bought at auction at Christie’s in 1999 for $85,000, is thought to have once decorated the floor of a Roman building near Edessa, in what is now the area around the city of Sanliurfa in southeastern Turkey. Edessa developed alliances with Rome from the time of Pompey and was sacked under the rule of the emperor Trajan.

    Maxwell L. Anderson, the director of the museum in Dallas, said that when he took over at the beginning of 2012, he asked antiquities curators to identify objects that might have provenance problems.

    “What I didn’t want to happen here was a succession of slow-motion claims coming at us,” he said in an interview. As part of the review, the museum has also transferred legal ownership of several objects to Italy, including a pair of Etruscan shields and three kraters, or earthenware vessels used to mix wine and water.

    Turkish officials had been searching for the Orpheus mosaic for some time, Mr. Anderson said. “For whatever reason, they hadn’t found their way to the Christie’s catalog or to us,” he said.

    When the museum contacted Turkey earlier this year to say that it had doubts about the mosaic, whose existence seems not to have been cited in publications before its inclusion in the Christie’s catalog, Turkish officials provided photographs of a looted site near Edessa whose physical characteristics closely matched those of the mosaic.

    “I saw that, and even as a novice, I said: ‘Done,’ ” Mr. Anderson said.

    Cemalettin Aydin, the consul general of Turkey in Houston, who along with other Turkish officials took possession of the mosaic at a ceremony in Dallas on Monday morning, said in prepared remarks that he applauded the museum’s “unwavering ethical stance.” He added that the restitution would lead to an active loan arrangement between Turkey and the Dallas museum. The museum has no Anatolian collection to speak of, and so the hope is that the agreement with Turkey will allow Dallas to organize ambitious exhibitions of work lent from that region.

    The return of the mosaic is the first official act of the museum’s new international loan initiative, called DMX, which seeks agreements with foreign museums to share objects and to collaborate on conservation projects, exhibitions and educational programs.

    A version of this article appeared in print on 12/04/2012, on page C1 of the NewYork edition with the headline: Dallas Museum Returns Art to Turkey.

    via Dallas Museum Volunteers to Return Mosaic to Turkey – NYTimes.com.

  • Britain ready to back Palestinian statehood at UN

    Britain ready to back Palestinian statehood at UN

    Mahmoud Abbas pledge not to pursue Israel for war crimes and resumption of peace talks are UK conditions

    Ian Black, Middle East editor

    Palestinians hold posters
    Palestinians hold posters of President Mahmoud Abbas during a rally supporting the UN bid for observer state status, in the West Bank city of Ramallah. Photograph: APAimages/Rex Features

    Britain is prepared to back a key vote recognising Palestinian statehood at the United Nations if Mahmoud Abbas pledges not to pursue Israel for war crimes and to resume peace talks.

    Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, has called for Britain’s backing in part because of its historic responsibility for Palestine. The government has previously refused, citing strong US and Israeli objections and fears of long-term damage to prospects for negotiations.

    On Monday night, the government signalled it would change tack and vote yes if the Palestinians modified their application, which is to be debated by the UN general assembly in New York later this week. As a “non-member state”, Palestine would have the same status as the Vatican.

    Whitehall officials said the Palestinians were now being asked to refrain from applying for membership of the international criminal court or the international court of justice, which could both be used to pursue war crimes charges or other legal claims against Israel.

    Abbas is also being asked to commit to an immediate resumption of peace talks “without preconditions” with Israel. The third condition is that the general assembly’s resolution does not require the UN security council to follow suit.

    The US and Israel have both hinted at possible retaliation if the vote goes ahead. Congress could block payments to the Palestinian Authority and Israel might freeze tax revenues it transfers under the 1993 Oslo agreement or, worse, withdraw from the agreement altogether. It could also annex West Bank settlements. Britain’s position is that it wants to reduce the risk that such threats might be implemented and bolster Palestinian moderates.

    France has already signalled that it will vote yes on Thursday, and the long-awaited vote is certain to pass as 132 UN members have recognised the state of Palestine. Decisions by Germany, Spain and Britain are still pending and Palestinians would clearly prefer a united EU position as counterweight to the US.

    Willian Hague, the foreign secretary, discussed the issue on Monday with Abbas and the French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, offiicals said.

    Palestinian sources said Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, raised the issue with Abbas at his Ramallah headquarters last week, shortly before a ceasefire was agreed in the Gaza Strip, as had Tony Blair, the Quartet envoy.

    Abbas has been widely seen to have been sidelined by his rivals in the Islamist movement Hamas, as well by his failure to win any concessions from Israel. Abbas, whose remit does not extend beyond the West Bank, hopes a strong yes vote will persuade Israel to return to talks after more than two years.

    Officals in Ramallah have opposed surrendering on the ICC issue so it can be used as a bargaining chip in future, but views are thought to be divided. Abbas said at the weekend: “We are going to the UN fully confident in our steps. We will have our rights because you are with us.”

    Leila Shaid, Palestine’s representative to the EU, said: “After everything that has happened in the Arab spring, Britain can’t pretend it is in favour of democracy in Libya, Syria and Egypt but accept the Palestinians continuing to live under occupation. As the former colonial power, Britain has a historic responsibility to Palestine. Britain is a very important country in the Middle East, it has extensive trade relations, and David Cameron should know he risks a popular backlash from Arab public opinion if he does not support us.”

    Palestinians have rejected the claim that they are acting unilaterally, calling the UN path “the ultimate expression of multilateralism”. Israel’s apparent opposition to unilateralism has not stopped it acting without agreement to build and expand settlements, they say.

    guardian.co.uk, 

  • BARAKKA – the campaign for our video ‘AGIT’ – YouTube

    BARAKKA – the campaign for our video ‘AGIT’ – YouTube

    BARAKKA = Original Turkish-American Rock-n-Roll (straight outta Philly, PA)

    Please support the group’s efforts to create an exceptionally awesome low-budget video for the song ‘Agit” on their brand-new album, Uzaklardan!

    via BARAKKA – the campaign for our video ‘AGIT’ – YouTube.

  • Obama urges Egypt and Turkey to play key Gaza role as death toll mounts

    Obama urges Egypt and Turkey to play key Gaza role as death toll mounts

    Gaza Israel and Palestini 010

    Palestinian youths clash with Israeli soldiers in the occupied West Bank city of Nablus. Photograph: Jaafar Ashtiyeh/AFP/Getty Images

    President Barack Obama has personally urged leaders in Turkey and Egypt to engage with Hamas over a “de-escalation” of hostilities in Gaza, while continuing to support Israeli strikes despite mounting Palestinian civilian casualties.

    Speaking on board Air Force One en route to Asia, White House national security adviser Ben Rhodes blamed Hamas for the current round of violence, stating that the “precipitating factor” for Israeli air strikes were rockets fired into civilian territories from Gaza.

    It comes as the Palestinian death toll continues to rise. Up to 41 Gazans, including 13 civilians, and three Israelis have been killed since the Israeli operation began. Palestinian authorities have said their dead included at least eight children and a pregnant woman.

    Asked about the bombing of government buildings – including prime minister Ismail Haniyeh’s offices – the US official said he wouldn’t comment on “specific targeting choices” other than to say that the administration would “always underscore the importance of avoiding civilian casualties”.

    But Rhodes reiterated the White House view that Hamas was responsible for the latest outburst of violence.

    “Just to be clear on the precipitating factor: these rockets had been fired into Israeli civilian areas and territory for some time now. So Israelis have endured far too much of a threat from these rocket for far too long, and that is what led the Israelis to take the action that they did in Gaza,” he said.

    He added that the US wanted the same thing as Israelis: “an end to the rocket fire coming out of Gaza”.

    The comments come as the White House increased its diplomatic efforts to end the violence in Gaza.

    Obama has spoken to Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, it emerged on Saturday, along with Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi.

    Both men have the “ability to play a constructive role in engaging Hamas and encouraging a process of de-escalation”, Rhodes said.

    However, on Saturday, Erdogan appeared to take a different side in the conflict, despite the call from Obama. The Turkish leader on Saturday vowed support for Gaza’s Palestinians in a speech at Cairo University in Egypt. He also met Morsi for the first time since the Eggyptian Islamist leader was elected in late June, with Erdogan saying that that win at the polls offered hope to Palestinians.

    The US has been reaching out to leaders across the Middle East as Israel and Hamas trade volleys of fire.

    Secretary of state Hillary Clinton has spoken to the foreign ministers if Israel, Turkey and Egypt in the past few days, as well as Jordan’s King Abdullah.

    But the US has been clear in pledging its support for Israel, its staunch ally.

    Obama, who was on Saturday making his way to south-east Asia for a three day trip, has spoken to prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu every day since the current round of Israeli air strikes in Gaza commenced.

    At a briefing on Friday, a State Department spokeswoman summed up the US position: “We are urging a de-escalation of this conflict. We are urging those countries with influence on Hamas and other groups in Gaza to use that influence to get a de-escalation,” the spokeswoman said.

    “We support … Israel’s right to self-defence, and we obviously express our regret and sadness for the loss of life on all sides.”

    Israel has seen the US stance as a clear signal that it has a virtually free hand.

    On Friday, the Israeli ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, said during a visit to Capitol Hill: “The United States has given us the full backing to take whatever measures are necessary to defend our citizens from Hamas terror.” Meanwhile, the Palestinian delegation to Washington has condemned the US response to the crisis as “biased and weak”.

    Despite diplomatic efforts, the violence continued on Saturday.

    Israeli air strikes hit the office building of the Hamas prime minister in Gaza, amid warnings of a dangerous escalation in the conflict with up to 75,000 Israeli reservists mobilised for a possible ground invasion.

    An explosion and air raid sirens were also heard over the Israeli port city of Tel Aviv as Palestinian militants in Gaza continued to fire rocket salvoes across the border four days after Israel launched an air offensive. So far Israel has struck more than 800 targets in Gaza while Gaza officials there said about 500 rockets had been launched so far at Israel.

    via Obama urges Egypt and Turkey to play key Gaza role as death toll mounts | World news | guardian.co.uk.

  • Obama says he won’t embrace Syria’s new opposition coalition yet

    Obama says he won’t embrace Syria’s new opposition coalition yet

    By Roy Gutman — McClatchy Newspapers

      Rebels clean their weapons and check ammunition Wednesday at their base on the outskirts of Aleppo, Syria.  Khalil Hamra — AP  Read more here:

    Rebels clean their weapons and check ammunition Wednesday at their base on the outskirts of Aleppo, Syria.
    Khalil Hamra — AP
    Read more here: http://www.bradenton.com/2012/11/14/4279104/obama-says-he-wont-embrace-syrias.html#storylink=cpy

    ISTANBUL, Turkey — Unlike France, Saudi Arabia and several other U.S. allies in the Gulf, President Obama Wednesday held back from recognizing a new Syrian opposition group as the core of a government-in-exile, a caution that appeared to reflect concern over issues that have emerged since its formation on Sunday.

    Questions have arisen about the views of the head of the group, moderate cleric Moaz al Khatib, and the influence of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood on the new organization, which since Sunday has operated under the ungainly name: the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces.

    Obama said he wanted to make sure that the opposition is “committed to a democratic Syria, an inclusive Syria, a moderate Syria” to replace the regime of Bashar Assad and added: “We have seen extremist elements insinuate themselves into the opposition.”

    He no doubt had in mind the presence of Islamists among the Syrian fighters on the ground, including some with reputed ties to the al Qaida terror organization, but U.S. officials in the past have also voiced concern over the influence over émigré politics of members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

    During the presidential election campaign that ended two weeks ago with Obama’s re-election, Republican challenger Mitt Romney repeatedly referred to the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a major setback to U.S. interests. In their foreign policy debate, Obama did not dispute the characterization.

    In its first major organizational decision on Wednesday, the new National Coalition announced it was setting up its headquarters in the Egyptian capital. The Egyptian foreign ministry said it would place “all our capacities at their disposal.”

    While the new Coalition undoubtedly was signaling a break with the Syrian National Council, the single biggest émigré political body, which had been based in Turkey, the move to Cairo ensures that the Brotherhood-led government in the most important Arab state will have more than a minor influence on the Syrian opposition.

    Members of the Brotherhood already had gained substantial influence on the Council, including its decision last Friday to reorganize and revamp its operations and to elect George Sabra, a Christian geography teacher, as its president.

    “A lot of Syrian opposition people were down on the Sabra appointment,” said Joshua Landis, a Syria specialist and director of the Center of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Oklahoma. “They saw it as a trick and a hypocritical move, because Sabra wasn’t even elected to the Secretariat General” of the Council, he told McClatchy.

    Brotherhood members did this by committing their bloc of 10 votes in the 41 seat General Secretariat first to add Sabra to the executive committee and then to elect him president. Christians comprise only about 10 per cent of the Syrian population, and lacking a sizable constituency of his own, Sabra could only feel beholden to the Brotherhood, he said.

    While the United States and other western powers want the new Coalition to supplant the Council, the Brotherhood is sure to retain its influence. A leading Brotherhood member told McClatchy that no more than six of the 63 in the Coalition’s membership are from his group. Yet with 22 of the Coalition seats occupied by members of the Council, and given that the Brotherhood has a significant influence on the Council, it seems likely to retain a substantial role in émigré politics.

    Amr al Azm, a Syrian American who teaches Middle East history at Shawnee State University in Ohio, calculates that the Brotherhood effectively controls half of more of the seats in the new Coalition.

    Analysts of Syrian politics point out that the Brotherhood has had almost no role or presence in Syria, since Assad’s father, Hafez, conducted a murderous crackdown against the Brotherhood in Hama in 1981, killing at least 10,000 civilians. Since Syrians took to the streets in March 2011 to demand Bashar Assad’s overthrow, Brotherhood members have proved the most astute of the émigré politicians in the tactics of political organization.

    There are other reasons for Washington not to jump too fast into supporting the Coalition, even though open U.S. pressure was a reason that it was set up to replace the Council. “The Coalition is fairly fragile,” said Azm. “It’s a totally untested entity. Plus the fact is the people themselves are untested.”

    The third cause for concern appears to be Khatib, a widely respected cleric, whose views on Syria’s future do not square with the U.S. government’s preferred course of action. In July, shortly after émigrés met in Cairo and drafted two documents of intent on running Syria, Khatib posted a statement on his web site, expressing disappointment that the documents did not refer to Islamic Sharia law.

    “It was part of a wider Brotherhood campaign to stir up anti-Cairo feelings,” Azm recalled. “It wasn’t just about Sharia. They were worried that the plan was too secular.” He said the posting “may come back to haunt” Khatib.

    Unless there’s a screen-save out there with the full text, it would be difficult to prove that Khatib said that, however. There was a gap in the postings on the site yesterday – from November 2011 through September 2012.

    Members of the Coalition and the Council will meet western leaders in London Friday to discuss western government plans to step up humanitarian aid to Syrians fighting to overthrow Assad and possibly open the way to an increased flow of weapons.

    But the meeting of real importance is a conference in Marrakesh in early December between a U.S.-sponsored group, the “Friends of the people of Syria” and the new Coalition. Should the United States still be unable to endorse the Coalition at that meeting, Syria observers say the Coalition will be severely weakened.

    (Special correspondent Paul Raymond contributed)

    Read more here: