Russian President Vladimir Putin arrived in Israel on June 25 for his first state visit since retaking the presidency. The visit was arranged in mid-May, and so at least part of the agenda was set, given events in Syria and Egypt. The interesting thing about Israel and Russia is that while they seem to be operating in the same areas of interest and their agendas seem disconnected, their interests are not always opposed. It is easy to identify places they both care about but more difficult to identify ways in which they connect. It is therefore difficult to identify the significance of the visit beyond that it happened.
An example is Azerbaijan. Russia is still a major weapons provider for Azerbaijan, but the Israelis are now selling it large amounts of weapons and appear to be using it as a base from which to observe and, according to rumors, possibly attack Iran. Russia, which supports Armenia, a country Azerbaijan fought a war with in the late 1980s and early 1990s and technically still is at war with, ought to oppose Israel’s action, particularly since it threatens Iran, which Russia does not want attacked. At the same time, Russia doesn’t feel threatened by Israeli involvement in Azerbaijan, and Israel doesn’t really care about Armenia. Both are there, both are involved and both think Azerbaijan is important, yet each operates in ways that ought to conflict but don’t.

The same is true in the more immediate case of Syria, where its downing of a Turkish plane has created an unexpected dynamic for this visit. To think about this we need to consider Russian and Israeli strategy and its odd lack of intersection in Syria.
Russia’s Need for a U.S. Distraction

Russia has complex relationships in the region, particularly focused on Syria and Iran. Russia’s interest in both countries is understandable. Putin, who has said he regarded the breakup of the Soviet Union as a geopolitical catastrophe, views the United States as Russia’s prime adversary. His view is that the United States not only used the breakup to extend NATO into the former Soviet Union in the Baltics but also has tried to surround and contain Russia by supporting pro-democracy movements in the region and by using these movements to create pro-American governments. Putin sees himself as being in a duel with the United States throughout the former Soviet Union.

The Russians believe they are winning this struggle. Putin is not so much interested in dominating these countries as he is in being certain that the United States doesn’t dominate them. That gives Russia room to maneuver and allows it to establish economic and political relations that secure Russian interests. In addition, Russia has tremendously benefited from the U.S. wars in the Islamic world. It is not so much that these wars alienated Muslims, although that was beneficial. Rather, what helped the Russians most was that these wars absorbed American strategic bandwidth.

Obviously, U.S. military and intelligence capabilities that might have been tasked to support movements and regimes in Russia’s “near abroad” were absorbed by conflict in the Islamic world. But perhaps even more important, the strategic and intellectual bandwidth of U.S. policymakers was diverted. Russia became a secondary strategic interest after 9/11. While some movements already in place were supported by the United States, this was mostly inertia, and as the Russians parried and movements in various countries splintered, the United States did not have resources to respond.

The Russians also helped keep the United States tied up in Afghanistan by facilitating bases in Central Asia and providing a corridor for resupply. Russia was able to create a new reality in the region in which it was the dominant power, without challenge.

The Russians therefore valued the conflict in the Middle East because it allowed Russia to be a secondary issue for the only global power. With the war in Iraq over and the war in Afghanistan ending, the possibility is growing that the United States would have the resources and bandwidth to resume the duel on the Russian periphery. This is not in the Russian interest. Therefore, the Russians have an interest in encouraging any process that continues to draw the United States into the Islamic world. Chief among these is supporting Iran and Syria. To be more precise, Russia does not so much support these countries as it opposes measures that might either weaken Iran or undermine the Syrian government. From the Russian point of view, the simple existence of these regimes provides a magnet that diverts U.S. power.
Israel’s Position on Syria

This brings us back to Putin’s visit to Israel. From the Russian point of view, Syria is not a side issue but a significant part of its strategy. Israel has more complex feelings. The regime of Syrian President Bashar al Assad, while the Soviets were allied with it, represented a significant danger to Israel. With the fall of the Soviet Union, Syria lost its patron and diminished as a threat. Since then, the Syrians under al Assad had two virtues from the Israeli point of view. The first was that they were predictable. Their interests in Lebanon were built around financial and political goals that could be accommodated by the Israelis in exchange for limitations on the sorts of military activity that Israel could not tolerate. Furthermore, Syria’s interests did not include conflict with Israel, and therefore Syria held Hezbollah in check until it was forced out of Lebanon by the United States in 2005.

The second advantage of the al Assad regime in relation to Israel was that it was not Sunni but Alawite, a Shiite sect. During the 2000s, Israel and the West believed the main threat emanated from the Sunni world. Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas were all Sunni. Over the past decade, a corrupt minority Alawite regime has appeared preferable to Israel than a coherent majority radical Islamist regime in the north. It wasn’t certain how radical it would be, but at the same time there appeared to be more risk on the Sunni side than on the Shiite side.

Israel’s position on the al Assad regime has shifted in the past year from hoping it would survive to accepting that it couldn’t and preparing for the next regime. Underlying this calculus was a reconsideration of which regime would be more dangerous. With the withdrawal of the United States from Iraq and with Iran filling the vacuum that was left, Iran became a greater threat to Israel than Hamas and the Sunnis. Therefore, Israel now desires a Sunni regime in Syria that would block Iranian ambitions.

In this sense, Israeli and Russian interests continue to diverge. At the same time, the Israelis are aware that they have very little influence over what happens in Syria. They are bystanders hoping that things work out for them. Whether they favor this or that faction in Syria matters little. Indeed, open Israeli support for any faction can hurt that side. Therefore, Syria is a demonstration of the limits of Israeli power. What happens in Syria matters a great deal, but Israel lacks the power and influence to have an impact.
Coinciding Interests

The Russians do have some power and influence. The weapons they supply to the Syrian government can help the regime survive. Their ability to block or circumvent sanctions helps both Iran and Syria. Russia cannot impose a solution, but it may be able to create the circumstances under which the United States is drawn in and diverted. At the same time, it must be remembered that Russia has its own problem with Islamic in the northern Caucasus. These groups are mostly Sunni, but there are a wide variety of Sunnis. While the Russians want to prevent a radical Sunni group in Syria, they could on this level live with a more moderate Sunni group if they cannot keep al Assad or his regime in power.

Putin’s visit is intended to make the United States nervous and to try to lay the groundwork for shifts in Israel’s relation to Russia that could pay off in the long run. The Israelis, however, do have things they need from Putin. They cannot control regime change in Syria, but to some extent Russia can. And here Israeli and Russian interests coincide. Israel would tolerate the survival of the al Assad regime as long as Syria does not become an Iranian satellite.

Russia could counterbalance Iran if al Assad’s regime survived. If, on the other hand, his regime fell, Israel and Russia both have an interest in a moderate Sunni regime. This is where Russia must make a decision — assuming it has the power to affect the outcome. In the long run, a moderate Sunni regime is in its interest. In the short run, it wants a regime that creates the greatest unease for the United States — that is, either the al Assad regime as an Iranian asset or a radical Islamist regime.

There is a point where all this comes together. Turkey has decided, in response to the downing of its aircraft, to call a meeting of NATO. Turkey is not prepared to unilaterally intervene in Syria, but having lost an aircraft it could ask for a NATO intervention of some sort. Turkey has been hostile to al Assad from early on, and this gives it the opportunity to invoke the alliance under its common defense policy.

How NATO will respond is unknown, save that the rhetoric will be intense and the desire for combat restrained. Neither Russia nor Israel would be upset by a NATO intervention. From the Russian point of view, a NATO intervention involving large amounts of U.S. forces would be the best it could hope for, especially if NATO gets bogged down, as tends to happen in such interventions. From the Israeli point of view, having NATO take responsibility for Syria would be the best possible outcome by far.

Of course, this was not on the table when the Israeli-Russian meeting was set up. At that time, the meeting was meant to explore the differences on subjects such as Syria. But with recent events, the benefits of possible NATO involvement, however unlikely, are something that Russia and Israel agree on. Of course, neither is a member of NATO, and getting any NATO country to commit troops to Syria is unlikely. But what was likely to be a pointless discussion now has some point.

Israel would like Russia as a mild counterweight to the United States but without disrupting relations with the United States. Russia would like to have additional options in the Middle East beyond Iran and Syria but without alienating those states. Neither is likely. When we dig into the strange relationship between two countries deeply involved in each other’s areas of interest yet never quite intersecting, an answer begins to emerge.

There is little conflict between Russia’s and Israel’s interests because neither country is nearly as powerful as it would like to be in the region. Russia has some options but nothing like it had during the Cold War. Israel has little influence in the outcome in Syria or in Egypt.

Still, it is in the interest of both countries to make themselves appear to be weightier than they are. A state visit should help serve that purpose.

SOURCE:Right Side News

CAIRO (Reuters) – Mohamed Mursi, Egypt’s first freely elected president whose powers have already been curbed by the army, began work on a coalition on Monday after touring his new palace, once home of Hosni Mubarak who banned his movement for three decades.

Declared winner on Sunday a week after a tumultuous run-off vote that pitted him against a former air force chief, the Islamist faces the challenge of meeting sky-high expectations in a nation tired of turmoil while the economy is on the ropes.

But his campaign pledge to complete the revolution that toppled Mubarak last year but left the pillars of his rule intact will come up against the entrenched interests of the generals who are in charge of the transition to democracy.

Shortly before the historic presidential vote, a newly elected Islamist-led parliament was dissolved by the army based on a court order, and the generals issued a decree setting limits on the president’s remit, which cuts into Mursi’s powers to act but exposes him to blame for any failures.

Critics at home and in the West called it a “soft coup”.

One pressing concern – on which many Egyptians are likely to judge his performance – will to be to revive the economy of the world’s most populous Arab nation.

Monday’s stock market rally, at least partly fuelled by relief that the vote and result passed off without violence, may encourage the new president, but he still has to prove to wary longer-term investors that Egypt is on the road to recovery.

Egyptian newspapers welcomed Mursi’s win over Ahmed Shafik, Mubarak’s last prime minister, as a victory for the people, although many more liberal-minded Egyptians worry his conservative group will slowly whittle away at social freedoms.

Further afield, his win has had an immediate impact beyond Egypt’s borders, inspiring Islamists who have risen up against autocrats across the Middle East and swept to power in North Africa. Israel worries its 1979 peace deal with Egypt, never warm, will cool further.

Palestinians in Gaza, however, are delighted.

Iran saw his election as an “Islamic awakening” – though Tehran and the Muslim Brotherhood follow different, often opposing forms of the faith. Iran’s Fars news agency published an interview in which Mursi called for restoring full ties between Cairo and Tehran to build strategic “balance”. A Mursi aide said he gave the interview 10 days ago.

DRAMATIC REVERSAL OF FORTUNES

A security official said Mursi, 60, and his wife took a tour of their new home, once Mubarak’s main residence – a dramatic change of fortunes full of symbolism for a former political prisoner whose group was pursued remorselessly during Mubarak’s 30-year rule.

An aide said Mursi then went to the Defence Ministry for talks with the head of the ruling military council’s Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi and the army-appointed Prime Minister Kamal al-Ganzouri. They discussed forming a new government at the meetings, which Egyptians will see as a sign that real power still lies with the army.

As president, Mursi can appoint the cabinet. His aides say he has already reached out to politicians from outside the Brotherhood such as reformist Mohamed ElBaradei, who has yet to publicly respond. But legislative powers remain with the army while the parliament is dissolved, restricting his power to act.

Egypt’s army-appointed government, led by al-Ganzouri who also served in the 1990s as prime minister under Mubarak, submitted its resignation on Monday but was asked to stay on temporarily until Mursi, who has yet to take the oath of office, put a team together, Information Minister Ahmed Anis said

“The revolution reaches the republican palace,” wrote Al-Shorouk newspaper. Another, Al-Akhbar, quoted from Mursi’s victory speech: “I am a servant of the people and an employee of the citizens”.

It is a sentiment widely spoken: the sense that at last, perhaps, Egyptians have a leader who can be “fired”.

Celebrations in Cairo’s Tahrir Square – theatre of the revolution that overthrew Mubarak – extended through the night. Some Brotherhood followers were still celebrating, surprised by their victory that broke a six-decade tradition of presidents plucked from the military.

“STRENGTH TO NEGOTIATE”

“It was a little surprising that the army acknowledged his win,” said 40-year-old teacher Adel Mohamed who was in the square when the result was declared after a nervous week’s wait since the vote. “The pressure from the street, from the revolution, will give Mursi strength to negotiate.”

From Syria’s opposition who are seeking the downfall of President Bashar al-Assad came word that Cairo was again a “source of hope” for a people “facing a repressive war of annihilation”.

But millions of Egyptians, and the Western powers, looked on with unease at the prospect of the long-suppressed Brotherhood making good on its dream of an Islamic state.

Israel has been particularly nervous, urging its neighbour to respect their peace deal. It worries that the Brotherhood’s win will embolden Palestinian Islamists opposed to Israel.

“Darkness in Egypt,” headlined Israeli paper Yedioth Ahronoth. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he “respected” the result and said he saw future cooperation with the new administration.

An aide to Mursi said during Mursi’s campaign that he would delegate meetings with Israeli officials to his foreign minister, unlike Mubarak who often met top Israelis. Mubarak went to Israel only once, for the funeral of assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

“Mursi’s victory is most likely to strengthen the hand of Hamas in its fight against Israel because it will give it a moral boost,” said political scientist Mustapha al-Sayyed.

But the army, determined not to see its $1.3 billion in U.S. military aid a year jeopardised, will probably ensure ties are not undermined even if the relationship sours, diplomats say.

Pledging to uphold international treaties, in a gesture to Israel, Mursi said in his first televised address as president-elect that he would work with others to see the democratic revolution through.

“There is no room now for the language of confrontation,” he said, a message addressed not just to the army but to the young, urban revolutionaries who launched last year’s uprising only to see the Brotherhood dominate the political scene afterwards.

One of the most influential revolutionary youth groups greeted Mursi’s win as a victory for last year’s uprising.

“We have defeated the candidate of Mubarak’s military state, the candidate of the corrupt ‘deep state’ that we are fed up with,” said the April 6 Youth movement.

“Starting today we will work as one body for Egypt.”

COMPROMISING WITH THE MILITARY

Western powers congratulated Mursi, who received a phone call from U.S. President Barack Obama, offering help.

The White House said in a statement: “The president underscored that the United States will continue to support Egypt’s transition to democracy and stand by the Egyptian people as they fulfil the promise of their revolution.”

Mursi may have little choice but to compromise with the army, and Brotherhood sources said a package of agreements discussed with generals last week could soon be announced.

The Brotherhood’s political gains, first winning the biggest bloc in parliament and then running for president, had rattled the military. With the help of a Mubarak-era judiciary, the military council dissolved parliament on the eve of the presidential vote, then gave itself the legislative power.

Senior Brotherhood officials say they have been negotiating in the past week to change some of that, though both sides deny any haggling over the result of the presidential vote itself.

“President Mursi and his team have been in talks with the military council to bring back the democratically elected parliament and other issues,” Essam Haddad, a senior Brotherhood official, told Reuters on Monday.

Brotherhood sources told Reuters they hoped the army might allow a partial recall of parliament and other concessions in return for Mursi exercising his powers to name a government and presidential administration in ways the army approves of – notably by extending appointments across the political spectrum.

Military officials have confirmed discussions in the past few days but had no immediate comment on the latest talks.

Brotherhood officials have said they will press on with street protests to pressure the army but this, along with a number of other contentious issues including to whom and where Mursi swears his oath of office, could be settled soon.

The army wants Mursi sworn in on June 30, meeting a deadline it set itself for handing over Egypt to “civilian rule” – although the military’s influence will go on long beyond that.

SOURCE:YAHOO!UK & IRELAND

 Along time ago, South Africa was a jungle, and there were many animals walking arround everywhere. Then, people became scared of the animals, so they put them into zoos and parks. There are many parks in South Africa where you can go to see the wild animals.

Finally, after driving for many hours in the car, they arrived at the park. It was so huge, it looked like a big bush. Huzaifah wondered whether they would see any animals in the bush.

As they were driving through the tress and bushes, they saw a buck running across the road. Mummy told tem read SUBHANALLAH every time they saw an animal, because Allah created all the beautiful animals and we should praise Him whenever we see his beautiful creation.

After that, they saw many animals! They saw some very tall giraffes with long necks eating from the top of the long trees. Abba made the giraffe’s neck long so that it can reach the high leaves easily.

They saw many zebras with beautiful black and white stipes. The rhinos had huge horns and the hippos were playing in the muddy water.

Every time they saw an animals, they would say SUBHANALLAH! They were so amazed at how many beautiful animals Allah had created.

After driving around for a few hours, they saw some lions eating a dead zebra. Muhammad asked, “Why are the lions eating the zebra?” Abba told them that Allah has created different animals as food for the lions.

There is no one in the jungles and bushes to feed the wild animals, so Allah has taught them how to catch their own food. Some animals, whilst zebras, bucks and giraffes eat grass and leaves. Allah has taught every animal to eat what food is good for them.

Just then, Muhammad shouted, “There’s an elephant!” They all turned to look, and saw 3 massive elephants walking towards them. As the elephants came closer to them, Huzaifah and Muhammad started crying. Muhammad shouted for their father to driave away quickly. Huzaifah screamed, “The elephant is going to attack us!”

Mummy and Abba were not even remember it. So Abba started reading it alound and they all read Aayatul Kursi. Just then, the elephants turned around and ran into the bush.

That night, before they went to sleep, Huzaifah asked his father, “Why did the elephant run away when we read Aayatul Kursi?” Abba explained, Aayatul kursi is the chief ayat of the entire Quran. Whoever recites Aayatul kursi, Allah will protect them from evil things and whatever they are sared of.”
Dear Little Muslims! Do you know Aayatul Kursi? Nabi (sallallahu alaihis wa sallam) has taught us to read it every night before we sleep and after evry salah. We should also read it when we leave our home, so Allah will protect it.

Whenever we are scared we should also read it. Allah is always there to look after us. If you are alone, or you are frightened of the dark, remember to take His name.
He will protect you always. If you have not learned Aayatul Kursi yet, ask your parents or your Muallimah to teach it to you.