BOERE EENHEID FORUM - Waar ons kennis deel

Beleef die boere kultuur, gesels oor Siener, Uhuru, WWIII, raak betrokke by boereplaas, blanke plakkerskampe en armoede verligting. Ons het boererate, boere resepte, boere gedigte en tradisionele liedjies. Raad tov onttrekking en kampering.
It is currently 24 May 2013, 14:09

All times are UTC + 2 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Midde Ooste
Post Number:#1  PostPosted: 13 Feb 2011, 11:08 
Offline
Koedoe
Koedoe
User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2010, 20:38
Posts: 688
Location: Tzaneen
Security forces in Yemen beat protesters

Published on 02-12-2011
Source: AP

Yemeni police with clubs on Saturday beat anti-government protesters who were celebrating the resignation of Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak and demanding the ouster of their own president.

The crackdown reflected an effort to undercut a protest movement seeking fresh momentum from the developments in Egypt, where an 18-day uprising toppled Mubarak. His ouster raised questions about the long-term stability of Yemen and other Western-allied governments in the region.

The United States is in a delicate position because it advocates democratic reform, but wants stability in Yemen because it is seen as a key ally in its fight against Islamic militants.

Hundreds of protesters had tried to reach the Egyptian embassy in Sanaa, Yemen's capital on Saturday, but security forces pushed them back. Buses ferried ruling party members, equipped with tents, food and water, to the city's main square to help prevent attempts by protesters to gather there.

There were about 5,000 security agents and government supporters in the Sanaa square named Tahrir, or Liberation. Egypt's protesters built an encampment at a square of the same name in Cairo, and it became a rallying point for their movement.

Witnesses say police, including plainclothes agents, drove several thousand protesters away from Sanaa's main square on Friday night. The demonstrators tore up pictures of President Ali Abdullah Saleh and shouted slogans demanding his immediate resignation.

Saleh has been in power for three decades and tried to blunt unrest by promising not to run again. His term ends in 2013.

Yemen is the Arab world's most impoverished nation and has become a haven for al-Qaida militants. Saleh's government is riddled with corruption and has little control outside the capital. Its main source of income - oil - could run dry in a decade.

Yemen has been the site of anti-U.S. attacks dating back to the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Aden harbor, which killed 17 American sailors. Radical U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, thought to be hiding in Yemen, is suspected of having inspired some attacks, including the deadly 2009 shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas.

http://www.roguegovernment.com/Security ... 5/Y/M.html

_________________
"So long as the people do not exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves to any number of gods, religions or otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men. All great truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Midde Ooste
Post Number:#2  PostPosted: 13 Feb 2011, 11:13 
Offline
Koedoe
Koedoe
User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2010, 20:38
Posts: 688
Location: Tzaneen
Analysis: Military coup was behind Mubarak's exit
Feb 11, 6:13 PM (ET)

By HAMZA HENDAWI

CAIRO (AP) - It was the people who forced President Hosni Mubarak from power, but it is the generals who are in charge now. Egypt's 18-day uprising produced a military coup that crept into being over many days - its seeds planted early in the crisis by Mubarak himself.

The telltale signs of a coup in the making began to surface soon after Mubarak ordered the army out on the streets to restore order after days of deadly clashes between protesters and security forces in Cairo and much of the rest of the Arab nation.

"This is in fact the military taking over power," said political analyst Diaa Rashwan after Mubarak stepped down and left the reins of power to the armed forces. "It is direct involvement by the military in authority and to make Mubarak look like he has given up power."

Army troops backed by tanks and armored fighting vehicles were given a hero's welcome by the protesters angry over brutal treatment by the police. The goodwill was reciprocated when the military vowed not to use force against protesters, a move that set them apart from the much-hated police who operated with near impunity under Mubarak.

The generals adopted a go-slow approach, offering Egyptians carefully weighed hints that it was calling the shots. They issued statements describing the protesters' demands as "legitimate" and made halfhearted calls on the demonstrators to go home and allow normal life to resume.

Rather than quit the protests, the demonstrators turned out in ever greater numbers. Mubarak offered one concession after another, but they all fell short of the protesters' demands that he immediately leave.

The military was clearly torn between its loyalty to the regime and the millions of protesters. Mubarak is one of their own, a former air force commander and a hero of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war.

But as the president continued to defy the growing crowds and cling to power, the Egyptian army moved more definitively toward seizing control for the first time in some 60 years.

Thursday brought the surprise announcement that the armed forces' highest executive body, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, was in "permanent session" - meaning that it was on a war footing.

State TV showed Defense Minister Hussein Tantawi presiding over a table seating some two dozen stern faced generals in combat fatigues - but no sign of commander in chief Mubarak. His newly appointed vice president, former army general and intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, was not there either - indicating a rift between the civilian and military leadership.

A statement, tellingly referred to as "communique number 1" - phrasing that in the Arab world suggests a coup - made no mention of Mubarak or Suleiman.

The council, it said, met to "discuss what measures and arrangements could be taken to safeguard the homeland and its achievements and the aspirations of the great Egyptian people."

Translation: The generals are in charge, not Mubarak, not Suleiman nor the Cabinet.

The communique set the stage for what the crowds of demonstrators expected would be Mubarak's resignation Thursday night. Instead, Mubarak announced he would stay in office and hand over power to Suleiman, who told protesters to go home and stop watching foreign news reports.

The protesters were furious - and so were the generals.

"Both of last night's addresses by Mubarak and Suleiman were in defiance of the armed forces," Maj. Gen. Safwat el-Zayat, a former senior official of Egypt's General Intelligence, told al-Ahram Online, the Internet edition of Egypt's leading daily, on Friday.

Protest leaders pleaded for the military to take over after Mubarak's speech, saying the country would explode until the army intervened.

If Mubarak had stepped down, handing Suleiman his presidential powers in line with the constitution would have kept his regime largely intact after he had gone, something that would have left the protesters unhappy.

In contrast, a military coup would provide a clean break with a regime they hated for so long, opening up a wide range of possibilities - suspending the constitution that many protesters saw as tailored to keep Mubarak in office and dissolving a parliament formed by an election marred by widespread fraud. A coup seemed to be the best way forward.

The first official word the protesters received from the generals on Friday, however, was discouraging.

A second military communique contained what appeared to be a reluctant endorsement of Mubarak's blueprint for a way out of the crisis, though it also projected the military as the ultimate guarantor of the country's highest interests. El-Zayat said the language in the statement was an attempt to avoid an open conflict.

Later Friday, with millions out on the streets demanding that he step down, Mubarak finally did just that. He may have been denied the chance to announce his own departure - say goodbye to the people he had ruled for nearly 30 years. Suleiman announced the decision for him.

Alternatively, he may have not wanted to go on television to say he was stepping down after less than 24 hours after insisting to serve out the remaining seven months of his current term.

It was a humiliating end.

Keeping up appearances, The military later issued a third military statement praising Mubarak as a leader who has done much to his country. It hinted that the military would not be in power for long, saying the armed forces were not a substitute for a legitimate administration. But it gave no clue as to what its plans are.

"The truth is that even the senior military now at the top of the power structure under Mubarak almost certainly have no clear idea of what happens next," Anthony Cordesman of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote in a commentary on Thursday. "It will be days before anyone know how well the transition will function, who goes and who stays, and how stable the result really is."
---
Hendawi is the AP chief of bureau in Cairo.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110211/D9LAS3U00.html

_________________
"So long as the people do not exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves to any number of gods, religions or otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men. All great truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Midde Ooste
Post Number:#3  PostPosted: 13 Feb 2011, 15:23 
Offline
Koedoe
Koedoe
User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2010, 20:38
Posts: 688
Location: Tzaneen
Arab regimes need change: Analysts
Feb 13, 2011 1:56 PM | By Sapa-AFP

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Within less than a month, popular uprisings toppled the long-time presidents of Egypt and Tunisia, and revolts could spread to other Arab countries if they do not implement reforms quickly, analysts say.

Image
Egyptian soldiers stand behind veiled women opposition supporters at Tahrir Square in Cairo February 13, 2011. Egypt's new military rulers, who have promised to hand power to civilians, faced impatient protesters on Sunday who want swift steps to prove their nation is set for democracy after Hosni Mubarak's overthrow.
Photograph by: GORAN TOMASEVIC
Credit: REUTERS


"The Arab leaders are in a race against time: either they quickly adopt liberal changes, or they suffer the same fate as (the leaders) of Tunisia and Egypt," said Anwar Eshki, the director of the Middle East Institute for Strategic Studies in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Egypt's president Hosni Mubarak, who resigned on Friday after being in power since 1981, and Tunisian president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, who departed after ruling for 23 years on January 14, both bowed to unprecedented waves of popular protests.

Angered by injustice, unemployment and corruption, "the Arab citizen is not the same as he was two months ago" and "has proven he can bring down an Arab head of state after two or three weeks of demonstrations," said Paul Salem, the director of the Carnegie Middle East Centre.

Various Arab leaders, some of whom, such as Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi, have been in power for over 40 years while many of those who have ruled with an iron fist have suddenly announced social security measures and political reforms.

The popular uprisings in those two countries "will have repercussions throughout the region" and the United States, which encouraged change in Tunisia and Egypt, will try to do the same in other Arab countries, said Saleh al-Qallab, a former Jordanian information minister.

"Who is next? No one can predict," he said, adding that this excludes Saudi Arabia, a rich oil state governed by the ultra-conservative Wahhabism doctrine, where "the process of reforms initiated by King Abdullah is moving slowly due to the weight of tradition and religion."

Eshki echoed that assessment, saying that "the United States will seek to avoid sudden change in the Gulf monarchies that could disrupt oil supplies to the world economy," but Washington "will advise them to engage in reforms and accelerate their implementation."

But he added that "the winds of change will blow on these (Gulf) countries. And if the leaders do not take the initiative, their people will."

The uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, which were initiated and led by young people using the social networking site Facebook and micro-blogging site Twitter, have showed the limits of Islamist activism, which Arab regimes have used as a scarecrow to ward off calls for reform, Salem said.

"Without adhering to an ideology," the uprisings have succeeded where Islamist movements have failed for decades, during which "they were presented or presented themselves as the only alternative to repressive Arab regimes," he said.

Salem added however that Mubarak's fall, in the eyes of Riyadh, "exacerbates the imbalance of power in the favour of Iran," which wants "an Islamic Middle East," and sees the departure of the Egyptian president as "the failure of the United States and Zionism in the region."

"The alliance of the Arab countries and the United States will weaken in favour of a degree of autonomy on the Turkish model, but these countries have no choice but to remain in the American fold," Salem said.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/articl ... --Analysts

_________________
"So long as the people do not exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves to any number of gods, religions or otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men. All great truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Midde Ooste
Post Number:#4  PostPosted: 13 Feb 2011, 15:26 
Offline
Koedoe
Koedoe
User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2010, 20:38
Posts: 688
Location: Tzaneen
US turning a blind eye in Sudan
It's prepared to sacrifice democracy for stability, writes Opheera McDoom
Feb 13, 2011 12:08 AM | By Opheera McDoom

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington risks repeating an old mistake in Sudan by supporting a repressive government for the sake of regional stability, a policy which has imploded with mass protests throughout the Middle East.

Many in Sudan say the US is turning a blind eye to Khartoum's crackdown on freedoms in the north and in Darfur - violence Washington was the first to call genocide - using as justification the prevention of a return to a civil war between the north and south of the country, which began in 1955.

Given popular uprisings in neighbouring Egypt and Tunisia against US-supported governments that have crushed opposition for decades, opposition figures in Sudan question the wisdom of rewarding Khartoum for allowing the south to secede unless it relaxes its security policies in the north.

So far, Khartoum has used force to suppress small anti-government protests, but as food price rises bite and it cracks down more, demonstrations could gain more support.

"They are making the same mistake as elsewhere, and it's absolutely unacceptable how they can be silent on the fighting in Darfur and the violence in the capital," said Mariam al-Mahdi, an opposition leader and the daughter of the last democratically elected leader of Sudan.

Leading the US charge to befriend Khartoum has been presidential envoy Scott Gration, who is stepping down from the post.

At a joint news conference with Foreign Minister Ali Karti this week, Gration praised government co-operation with UN peacekeepers (Unamid) in Darfur and defended the Sudanese Humanitarian Aid Commission's restrictions on aid agencies.

"The government of Sudan has taken great steps to lift restrictions on Unamid," he said. "We've seen great improvement of access for Unamid and for the international NGOs."

This may surprise those working in Darfur. UN reports in January alone recorded 11 patrols stopped by the government and four threats of attack in the past two months. Aid agencies are still barred from much of rebel-controlled Jabel Marra.

Announcing that Gration would be nominated to become the new US ambassador to Kenya, the White House said on Thursday: "We would like to stress that his departure in no way indicates that this administration is walking away from the many challenges we still face in Sudan, particularly in Darfur."

Aly Verjee, a researcher at the Rift Valley Institute, a regional think tank, said Washington had gone too far in rewarding Khartoum.

"There's a loss of balance," he said. "In Sudan, they're making the same trade-off (as elsewhere in the region) that stability is important, and if that comes at the cost of democracy, then so be it."

The US embassy declined to comment directly, instead sending a brief by Assistant Secretary of State Philip J Crowley, who said co-operation between the countries on counter-terrorism had improved "in recent years".

"We are certainly not ignoring the situation with respect to Darfur," Crowley said. "That is ... of critical importance in terms of our ability to make the decision down the road to normalise relations with Sudan."

Gration, along with much of the West, kept largely silent on a crackdown on three opposition parties, dozens of arrests of youths demonstrating against price rises and government policies, and the beating and teargassing of a series of peaceful student protests in the north.

Despite these transgressions, Sudan seems confident it has opened a new page with Washington, sparking a conciliatory attitude towards the south's split in sharp contrast to the aggressive rhetoric ahead of the January secession referendum.

"There is agreement that Darfur will not be a hindrance to the normalisation of relations between the two countries," Karti said at the joint news conference.

What Washington has offered - help with relief of Sudan's $40- billion external debt, removal from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism or easing of a trade embargo - seems to have been sufficient for Khartoum to change its tune and stop it beating the drums of north-south war.

Some analysts say removing Khartoum from the terror list should not be a political issue.

"If you're listed as a state sponsor of terror you should be delisted because you're not supporting terrorism, not as a reward for something ... political - it politicises that classification," said Gill Lusk, a Sudan specialist at the Africa Confidential publication. - Reuters

http://www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/arti ... e-in-Sudan

_________________
"So long as the people do not exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves to any number of gods, religions or otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men. All great truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Midde Ooste
Post Number:#5  PostPosted: 13 Feb 2011, 15:57 
Offline
Koedoe
Koedoe
User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2010, 20:38
Posts: 688
Location: Tzaneen
Friday, February 11, 2011 FOR YOUR EYES ONLY

Top Hizbullah agent and 17,000 other inmates break out of Egyptian prison

NICOSIA — A senior Hizbullah operative, convicted of establishing an operational cell, has escaped Egypt.

Hizbullah did not provide information on the other 25 members of the cell convicted in Egypt. Hamas has said that some of its operatives also escaped Egyptian detention.
In all, about 17,000 inmates were said to have escaped prisons throughout the country.

Hizbullah said Sami Shihab broke out of an Egyptian prison amid the opposition campaign to topple President Hosni Mubarak. Shihab was convicted of establishing a Hizbullah network that planned attacks throughout Egypt.

"He has left an Egyptian prison and is now safe and secure," Hizbullah spokesman Mahmoud Qamati said.

Qamati, a member of the Hizbullah Political Council, said Shihab escaped along with thousands of other inmates. Qamati did not say where Shihab, who had been sentenced in Egypt to 15 years, was hiding.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribun ... _02_11.asp

_________________
"So long as the people do not exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves to any number of gods, religions or otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men. All great truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Midde Ooste
Post Number:#6  PostPosted: 13 Feb 2011, 16:02 
Offline
Koedoe
Koedoe
User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2010, 20:38
Posts: 688
Location: Tzaneen
Friday, February 11, 2011 INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING

Western intel: Post-Mubarak Egypt is ripe
for Islamic takeover


CAIRO — With the departure of President Hosni Mubarak, the military is mulling the prospect of a partnership with the Islamic opposition.

Western intelligence sources said the military as well as the security forces could no longer be counted upon to block an Islamic takeover in Egypt.
"The upper crust of the military and security forces remain loyal, but those in the field are not willing to fight and die for Mubarak or [Vice President Omar] Suleiman," an intelligence source said.

On Feb. 10, Mubarak insisted that he would not resign until his term ended in September, but would transfer authority to Suleiman. Hours later, he stepped aside. Hours earlier, the Supreme Armed Forces Council, in its first meeting since 1973, convened to discuss the security situation and pledged to protect people and property.

"It [council] will continue meeting on a continuous basis to examine measures to be taken to protect the nation and its gains and the ambitions of the great Egyptian people," the council, headed by Defense Minister Hussein Tantawi, said.

Neither Mubarak or Suleiman attended the meeting of the Supreme Armed Forces Council. The council, shown on Egyptian television, showed about 25 senior commanders, some of whom were believed to have participated in a dialogue with the opposition.

"There has been a fallout between Tantawi and Suleiman," the source said. "Tantawi has support for his position from the United States and is in contact with the Muslim Brotherhood."

In late January 2010, Tantawi held secret talks in Washington regarding the prospect of a post-Mubarak Egypt. The sources said Tantawi left Washington in the mistaken belief that the administration of President Barack Obama supported a military coup in Cairo.

The sources said Mubarak had turned into a virtual figurehead and no longer played a significant role in Egypt. They said Suleiman has sought to recruit the military to ensure control over Egypt amid the threat of an Islamic takeover.

"There must be an end to this crisis as soon as possible," Suleiman said. "We don't want to deal with Egyptian society with police tools."

The greatest threat to the Mubarak regime was said to have been the Muslim Brotherhood, which has ruled out cooperation with Suleiman, Egypt's former longtime intelligence chief. The sources said the Brotherhood has penetrated virtually every sector of Egyptian society, including the military, security forces, media, clergy and unions.

"Officially, Suleiman is now the boss, but Tantawi controls the military, the only force left that could protect the regime," the intelligence source said. "Tantawi and the top military commanders are talking to the Brotherhood in what could eventually result in a power-sharing arrangement."

At the same time, the Brotherhood was organizing thousands of mosques to send volunteers and supplies to expand anti-regime protests. The Islamic opposition has also staged labor strikes, including those by bus drivers and municipal workers.

On Feb. 4, the Brotherhood issued a leaflet that called on Mubarak to leave office. The leaflet, which adopted language similar to Al Qaida, also demanded an Islamic revival in what was termed historical Egypt, which includes Sudan and parts of Israel.

"The Brotherhood has changed and draws its language and ideas from Bin Laden," another intelligence source said. "Right now, it is waiting for the right moment to act."

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribun ... _02_11.asp

_________________
"So long as the people do not exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves to any number of gods, religions or otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men. All great truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Midde Ooste
Post Number:#7  PostPosted: 14 Feb 2011, 15:58 
Offline
Koedoe
Koedoe
User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2010, 20:38
Posts: 688
Location: Tzaneen
Blown Opportunities
Tsunami in Egypt


February 14, 2011
By URI AVNERY

Until the very last moment, the Israeli leadership tried to keep Hosni Mubarak in power.

It was hopeless. Even the mighty United States was impotent when faced with this tsunami of popular outrage.

In the end it settled for second best: a pro-Western military dictatorship. But will this really be the outcome?
* * *

WHEN CONFRONTED with a new situation, Obama’s first response is generally admirable.

Then, it seems, second thoughts set in. And third. And fourth. The end result is a 180 degree turn.

When the masses started to gather in Tahrir Square, he reacted exactly like most decent people in the US and, indeed, throughout the world. There was unbounded admiration for those brave young men and women who faced the dreaded Mukhabarat secret police, demanding democracy and human rights.

How could one not admire them? They were non-violent, their demands were reasonable, their actions were spontaneous, they obviously expressed the feelings of the vast majority of the people. Without any organization to speak of, without leadership, they said and did all the right things.

Such a sight is rare in history. No sansculottes screaming for blood, no cold-minded Bolsheviks lurking in the shadows, no Ayatollahs dictating their actions in the name of God.

So Obama loved it. He did not hide his feelings. He practically called on the dictator to give up and go away.

If Obama had stayed this course, the result would have been historic. From being the most hated power in the Arab world, the US would have electrified the Arab masses, the Muslim region, indeed much of the Third World. It could have been the beginning of a completely new era.

I believe that Obama sensed this. His first instincts are usually right. In such a situation, a real leader – that rarest of all animals – stands out.
* * *

BUT THEN came the second thoughts. Small people started to work on him. Politicians, generals, “security experts”, diplomats, pundits, lobbyists, business leaders, all the “experienced” people – experienced in routine affairs – started to weigh in. And, of course, the hugely powerful Israel lobby.

“Are you crazy?” - they admonished him. To forsake a dictator who happens to be our son-of-a-******? To tell all our client dictators around the world that we shall forsake them in their hour of need?

How naïve can you get? Democracy in an Arab country? Don’t make us laugh! We know the Arabs! You show them democracy on a platter and they would not know it from baked beans! They always need a dictator to keep them in shape! Especially these Egyptians! Ask the British!

The whole thing is really a conspiracy of the Muslim Brotherhood. Look them up on Google! They are the only alternative. It’s either Mubarak or them. They are the Egyptian Taliban, worse, the Egyptian al-Qaeda. Help the well-meaning democrats to overthrow the regime, and before you know it you will have a second Iran, with an Egyptian Ahmadinejad on Israel’s Southern border, hooking up with Hezbollah and Hamas. The dominos will begin to fall, starting with Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Faced with all these experts, Obama caved in. Again.
* * *

OF COURSE, every single one of these arguments can easily be refuted.

Let’s start with Iran. The naïve Americans, so the story goes, forsook the Shah and his dreaded Israeli-trained secret police in order to promote democracy, but the revolution was taken over by the Ayatollahs. A cruel dictatorship was replaced by an even crueler one. This is what Binyamin Netanyahu said this week, warning that the same is inevitably bound to happen in Egypt.

But the true Iranian story is quite different.

In 1951, a patriotic politician named Mohammad Mossadegh was elected in democratic elections – the first of their kind in Iran. Mossadegh, neither a communist nor even a socialist, instituted sweeping social reforms, freed the peasants and worked mightily to turn backward Iran into a modern, democratic, secular state. In order to make this possible, he nationalized the oil industry, which was owned by a rapacious British company which paid Iran miniscule royalties. Huge demonstrations in Tehran supported Mossadegh.

The British reaction was swift and decisive. Winston Churchill convinced President Dwight Eisenhower that Mossadegh’s course would lead to Communism. In 1953 the CIA engineered a coup, Mossadegh was arrested and kept in isolation until his death 14 years later, the British got the oil back. The Shah, who had fled, was put back on his throne again. His reign of terror lasted until the Khomeini revolution, 26 years later.

Without this American intervention, Iran would probably have developed into a secular, liberal democracy. No Khomeini. No Ahmadinejad. No talk about nuclear bombs.
* * *

NETANYAHU’S WARNINGS of the inevitable takeover of Egypt by the fanatical Muslim Brotherhood, if democratic elections were held, sound logical, but they are similarly based on willful ignorance.

Would the Muslim Brothers take over? Are they Taliban-like fanatics?

The Brotherhood was founded 80 years ago, long before Obama and Netanyahu were born. They have settled down and matured, with a strong moderate wing, much like the moderate, democratic Islamic party that is governing Turkey so well, and which they are trying to emulate. In a democratic Egypt, they would constitute a legitimate party playing its part in the democratic process.

(This, by the way, would have happened in Palestine, too, when Hamas was elected – if the Americans, under Israeli guidance, had not toppled the unity government and set Hamas on a different course.)

The majority of Egyptians are religious, but their Islam is far removed from the radical kind. There are no indications that the bulk of the people, represented by the youngsters in Tahrir Square, would tolerate a radical regime. The Islamic bogeyman is just that – a bogeyman.

SO WHAT did Obama do? His moves were pathetic, to say the least.
After turning against Mubarak, he suddenly opined that he must stay in power, in order to carry out democratic reforms. As his representative he sent to Egypt a retired diplomat whose current employer is a law firm that represents the Mubarak family (much as Bill Clinton used to send committed Jewish Zionists to “mediate” between Israel and the Palestinians.)
So the detested dictator was supposed to institute democracy, enact a new liberal constitution, work together with the very people he had thrown into prison and systematically tortured.

Mubarak’s pathetic speech on Thursday was the straw that broke the back of the Egyptian camel. It showed that he had lost contact with reality or, worse, is mentally deranged. But even an unbalanced dictator would not have made such an atrocious speech had he not believed that America was still on his side. The howls of outrage in the square while Mubarak’s recorded speech was still being aired was Egypt’s answer. That needed no interpreters.
* * *

BUT AMERICA had already moved. Its main instrument in Egypt is the army. It is the army that holds the key to the immediate future. When the “Supreme Military Council” convened on Thursday, just before that scandalous speech, and issued a “Communique No. 1”, hope was mingled with foreboding.

“Communique No. 1” is a term well known in history. It generally means that a military junta has assumed power, promising democracy, early elections, prosperity and heaven on earth. In very rare instances, the officers indeed fulfill these promises. Generally, what ensues is a military dictatorship of the worst kind.

This time, the communique said nothing at all. It just showed on live TV that they were there – all the leading generals, minus Mubarak and his stooge, Omar Suleiman.

Now they have assumed power. Quietly, without bloodshed. For the second time within 60 years.
* * *

IT IS worthwhile recalling the first time. After a period of turmoil against the British occupiers, a group of young officers, veterans of the 1948 Israeli-Arab war, hiding behind an elderly general, carried out a coup. The despised ruler, King Farouk, was literally sent packing. He put to sea on his yacht from Alexandria. Not a drop of blood was shed.

The people were jubilant. They loved the army and the coup. But it was a revolution from above. No crowds in Tahrir Square.

The army tried first to govern through civilian politicians. They soon lost patience with that. A charismatic young lieutenant-colonel, Gamal Abd-al-Nasser, emerged as the leader, instituted wide-ranging reforms, restored the honor of Egypt and the entire Arab world – and founded the dictatorship which expired yesterday.

Will the army follow this example, or will it do what the Turkish army has done several times: assume power and turn it over to an elected civilian government?

Much will depend on Obama. Will he support the move to democracy, as his inclination will undoubtedly suggest, or will he listen to the “experts”, Israelis included, who will urge him to rely on a military dictatorship, as American presidents have done for so long?

But the chance of the United States of America, and of Barack Obama personally, leading the world by shining statesmanship at a historic moment 19 days ago has been wasted. The beautiful words have evaporated.

For Israel there is another lesson. When the Free Officers made their revolution in 1952, in the whole of Israel only one single voice was raised (that of Haolam Hazeh, the news magazine I was editing) calling upon the Israeli government to come out in support. The government did the opposite, and a historic chance to show solidarity with the Egyptian people was lost.
Now, I am afraid, this mistake will be repeated. The tsunami is being viewed in Israel as a terrifying natural catastrophe, not as the wonderful opportunity it is.

Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is a contributor to CounterPunch's book The Politics of Anti-Semitism. http://www.easycartsecure.com/CounterPu ... Books.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery02142011.html

_________________
"So long as the people do not exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves to any number of gods, religions or otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men. All great truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Midde Ooste
Post Number:#8  PostPosted: 14 Feb 2011, 16:02 
Offline
Koedoe
Koedoe
User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2010, 20:38
Posts: 688
Location: Tzaneen
The Nature of "Revolutions" in the Middle East
By SASAN FAYAZMANESH

Question: What is the nature of the “revolution” in Egypt and where is it going?

Some news-making answers:

Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei (Iran’s Supreme Leader): “This is what was always referred to as the Islamic awakening created by the victory of the great Revolution of the Iranian nation.” (TV Press, February 4, 2011).

Benjamin Netanyahu (Prime Minister of Israel): “In a time of chaos, an organised Islamic group can take over the state. It happened in Iran [in 1979] and it also happened in other places” (The Australian, February, 2, 2011).

Mirhossein Mousavi (Iran’s 2009 presidential candidate and leader of the Iranian Green movement): “The slogans of the Iranian nation who took to the streets in 2009 . . . have reached Egypt” (Reuters, February 2, 2011).

Ali Larijani (Speaker of Iran’s Parliament): “What is happening these days in Tunisia and Egypt is a kind of Islamic awakening that the Westerners should pay attention to” (Press TV, February 3, 2011).

John McCain (US Senator): “This virus spreading through the Middle East proves the human yearnings” (AP, February 3, 2011).

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: “The Specter of 1979 Is Haunting the Middle East” (Headline, February, 3, 2011).

Kayhan (Iran’s daily principalist newspaper): “The Dawn of Khomeini in the Arabic Middle East” (Headline, February 2, 2011)


In his 1969 book Perception & Discovery: An Introduction to Scientific Inquiry, the philosopher of science N.R. Hanson has a chapter entitled “Seeing and Seeing As.” In it he presents a famous example of gestalt switch, a funny looking picture which could be construed as either a bunny rabbit or a duck. The question is which do you see; and the answer is what is the context? You might see a bunny rabbit or a duck, depending on whether you put the picture in the midst of either bunny rabbits or ducks. That, of course, is normal and expected. But if you see the same funny looking picture in the midst of a mixture of bunny rabbits and ducks, or even in the midst of elephants, and you still insist that it is a duck, then you might only see what you would like to see. This seems to be the story behind the above answers concerning the nature of the Egyptian “revolution” and its future.

Before going any further let me explain why I put revolution in quotation marks. The term is perennially unclear. Does “revolution” mean a complete change in economic structure and a corresponding overhaul of political and legal institutions, the kind of revolution that Marx had in mind in his preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy? Or could something as trifling as overthrowing a two-bit dictator be called a “revolution”? These days, it seems the term is being used more and more in the latter sense. Indeed, the former is so drastic and epoch making that it is hard to come up with an example of it. And if such revolutions did take place, their gestation periods were very long. Certainly, such revolutions as the “bourgeoisie revolution” that Marx seems to have had in mind in A Contribution were centuries in the making and did not take place overnight. Thus, in the absence of grand changes in economic structure and corresponding superstructure, we use the term “revolution” loosely, whether we are conscious of it or not.

The Iranian Revolution of 1979, which many see as the inspiration for the Egyptian Revolution, should be looked at in the loose sense mentioned above. It originally started as a massive, popular uprising against the Shah, a ruthless dictator who had a symbiotic relation with the “West,” particularly with the US and Israel. They scratched his back and he scratched theirs, that is, they helped to keep him in power and he helped to maintain their “interest.” The “interest” included exchanging petrodollars for arms, which in turn were used to maintain “law and order” in the Persian Gulf region.

The simmering discontent among the populace, building up over decades, eventually reached a boiling point and led to massive demonstrations against the monarch in 1978 and 1979, particularly when economic bottlenecks brought additional hardship in Iran. Since the dictator had managed to silence all opposition to his rule, the demonstrations in Iran originally were mostly leaderless and spontaneous. However, the religious groups—which the Shah could not eradicate since their lives were intertwined with the fabric of the society—soon filled the vacuum and took over the leadership. In a classic case of “seeing and seeing as,” these groups saw the popular revolution of 1979, the Iranian Revolution, as nothing more than an “Islamic Revolution.”

The Islamic Revolution ended the institution of monarchy and, with it, the decades-old symbiotic relation between the monarch and the “West.” “Iran was lost,” to use the language of Washington policy makers. Yet, almost to the last minute, the US tried to cling to its strongman, denying that he was a dictator and violated human rights. Indeed, it seemed the policy of human rights, designed by the US policy makers to combat “communism,” had no application whatsoever to the client states of the US. Thus, in 1978 President Carter toasted his friend, the Shah, and stated:
Quote:
Iran is an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world. This is a great tribute to you, Your Majesty, and to your leadership and to the respect, admiration and love which your people give to you. There is no leader in the world for whom I feel such deep gratitude and personal friendship as the Shah (The New York Times, January 1, 1978).


But once the winds against the dictator started to blow so fast that saving him appeared to be impossible, the “West” discarded the old ally like a piece of trash and tried to make a deal with the future rulers of Iran.

Internally, the Islamic Revolution ended the oppressive rule of the monarch but imposed on Iran the “Velayat-e Faqih,” or the “guardianship of the jurist.” The constitution of Iran became “The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Iran” and its first article read: “The form of government of Iran is that of an Islamic Republic, endorsed by the people of Iran on the basis of their long-standing belief in the sovereignty of truth and Qur’anic justice.” Iran became the “Islamic Republic” and judicial matters were subjected to religious interpretation. Whereas in the old order the monarch defined the bounds of freedom, now “Islam,” as interpreted by the “Islamic jurist,” defined the limits of what one can and cannot do.

Thirty years later, after a tumultuous and contentious election in Iran in 2009, those masses who could no longer tolerate the limits of their freedom found an occasion to take their case to the streets. The use of modern technology, such as cell phones and the internet, facilitated organizing the demonstrations. But these demonstrations were, once again, mostly leaderless and spontaneous without clearly articulated and defined goals and demands. What united the masses seemed to be what the Iranians had fought for since the Constitutional Revolution of 1905-1911: attaining basic freedoms and liberties.

However, the problem of “seeing and seeing as” crept in. Those who saw the demonstrations in the context of a “stolen election,” saw the uprising as a “Green Revolution” in support of this or that presidential candidate, even if these candidates represented the same old guards in new clothes. Those in the “West” who were infatuated with modern technology, mostly the “technology geeks,” saw the events as a “Twitter Revolution.” And some, living in the heart of the US, saw the events as a “civil rights movement,” analogous to that carried out by the African-Americans in the 1950s and 60s. The “principalists” in Iran, who have seen years of sanctions and threats by the “West” to overthrow the Islamic government, saw the events as nothing more than a “sedition” organized and supported by the “West.” In sum, people saw mostly what they wanted to see, even if the context was not exactly there and their imaginations seemed to be running wild.

The revolution in Egypt, too, presents the dilemma of “seeing and seeing as.” It would be easy to see this event in the context of the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The dictatorial rule of Mubarak is similar to that of the Shah; so is his symbiotic relation with the “West.” With brute force Mubarak has maintained “law and order” in Egypt. He has also preserved the interest of the US and Israel in the region, including helping to perpetuate the occupation of the Palestinian homeland. The “West,” in turn, has maintained his rule. Similar to the Shah, Washington has continuously denied that Mubarak is a dictator. Indeed, as late as January 28, 2011, Vice President Biden stated on PBS’s NEWSHOUR: “I would not refer to him as a dictator.” And similar to the Shah, the US has stood by its strongman almost to the last minute. But, once the winds against the dictator started to blow so fast that saving him appeared to be impossible, the US was willing to discard him like a piece of trash. After all, two-bit dictators are a dime a dozen, and there are many more where they came from.

However, rather than seeing the Egyptian Revolution in the context of the Iranian Revolution, many have been looking at it in the context of the Islamic Revolution. This includes such mortal enemies as the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Israel. They see what they want to see, even though there is no sign of any Islamic Revolution in Egypt. Indeed, shortly after the proclamation of Ayatollah Khamenei concerning the nature of the revolution in Egypt, the official websites of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood [MB] stated: “MB responds to Iran’s Islamic Leader Mr Khamenai: The MB regards the revolution as the Egyptian People’s Revolution not an Islamic Revolution asserting that the Egyptian People’s Revolution includes Muslims, Christians, from all sects.” Yet, neither the leaders of Israel nor those of Iran seem to accept this disclaimer. The reasons for the reluctance are, of course, very different. The Israeli leaders would like to create a boogeyman to scare the world so that the Israeli-friendly dictatorships in the Middle East, such as Mubarak, continue to reign and maintain “law and order.” The leaders of the Islamic Republic, on the other hand, have their own reasons to insist that what we are witnessing is the spread of the Islamic Revolution. This includes glorifying and preserving a system that does not tolerate any dissenting voice.

There are, of course, other ways to see the Egyptian revolution. Indeed, there are some parallels between this revolution and the 2009 post-presidential election in Iran. For example, similar to Iran, the use of modern technology made organizing demonstrations in Egypt easier. Consequently, the Egyptian government, similar to the government of Iran, tried to suppress such uses and blamed external forces for the demonstrations. In the height of the absurdity, the authorities in Egypt even blamed Israel, which has steadfastly stood by Mubarak, its partner in crime, for the turmoil! But the analogy soon ends and it makes no sense to see, as the leader of the Iranian Green movement sees, the slogans of the “stolen election” in Iran reaching Egypt. In all the pictures of the demonstrations in Egypt that have reached us, there is not a single placard saying “where is my vote,” a placard that was visible in the Green demonstrations.

Lastly, there is the US policy maker’s way of seeing the revolution in Egypt. This is exemplified by Senator McCain, who sees the “human yearnings” that are spreading across the Middle East, and particularly in Egypt, as a “virus.” If these “human yearnings” are for freedom and liberty, then one has to say that mankind has been chronically sick, since the yearnings are universal. But, it seems that for the likes of Mr. McCain, who sees the people of the Middle East as nothing more than the vassals of the US and Israel, the yearnings for freedom and liberty become a virus when it reaches countries such as Egypt.

It is hard to predict how the events in Egypt will unfold. Revolutions are notoriously unpredictable. But if we put this revolution in the right context, a broad and historical context, it is easier to see the ultimate outcome. Whether Mubarak, or for that matter any other dictator in the region, falls today or tomorrow is immaterial. What matters is what is happening in the streets of Egypt and some other countries in the region. The mass movements show that the region has finally reached the level of development that allows people to challenge the dictators that rule them, particularly the dictators who are nourished from outside. It is time for those who still see the world in the old context of colonialism to see the new reality of the Middle East and come to terms with it. It is also time for the dictators, even the independent ones, to see the writing on the wall.

Sasan Fayazmanesh is Professor Emeritus of Economics at California State University, Fresno. He can be reached at: sasan.fayazmanesh@gmail.com

http://www.counterpunch.org/sasan02112011.html

_________________
"So long as the people do not exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves to any number of gods, religions or otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men. All great truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Midde Ooste
Post Number:#9  PostPosted: 14 Feb 2011, 16:09 
Offline
Koedoe
Koedoe
User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2010, 20:38
Posts: 688
Location: Tzaneen
From Stalemate to Checkmate
Meet Egypt's Future Leaders
By ESAM AL-AMIN

Quote:
O Youth, today is your day so shout
No more slumber or deep sleep
This is your time and your place
Bestow on us your talents and efforts
We want Egypt’s youth to hold fast
As they resist the aggressor and outsider

Egyptian Poet Ibrahim Nagi (1898-1953)

On June 6, 2010, soft-spoken businessman Khaled Said, 28, had his dinner before retreating to his room and embarking on his daily routine of surfing the Internet, blogging, and chatting with his friends on different social websites. Several days earlier, he had posted a seven-minute online video of Alexandria police officers dividing up confiscated drugs among themselves.

When his Internet service suddenly was disrupted that evening, he left his middle class apartment in the coastal city of Alexandria and headed to his neighborhood Internet café. As he resumed blogging, two plain-clothes secret police officers demanded that he be searched. When he inquired as to why or on whose authority, they scoffed at him while blurting out: emergency law. He refused to be touched and demanded to see a uniformed officer or be taken to a police station.

According to eyewitnesses, within minutes they dragged him to a nearby vacant building and began to severely beat up his tiny body, eventually smashing his head on a marble tabletop. His body was subsequently dumped in the street to be retrieved later by an ambulance that declared him dead. According to his mother, Leila Marzouq, his body was totally bruised, teeth broken, and skull fractured.

Immediately, the Interior Ministry started the cover-up campaign. The official report claimed that Said was a drug dealer who tried to escape arrest. They claimed that when he was busted he died by asphyxia as he tried to swallow the narcotics. The authorities backed up this incredible account with two medical reports from the state’s medical examiner. The government print and TV media recycled the official version by painting the reclusive and shy blogger as a reckless drug addict and dealer.

However, when graphic images of Said’s body began to circulate online, other political bloggers and human rights activists were enraged and the nascent youth movement to rescind the 29-year old emergency law started to transform itself from online group discussions to popular protests in the streets of Alexandria, which were predictably met with more police repression and brutality.

Since he became president in 1981, Hosni Mubarak has been utilizing the emergency law as a club to beat down political activity and civil liberties, as well as a means to sanction abuse and torture. According to human rights groups including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Egyptian human rights groups, no less than 30,000 Egyptians have been imprisoned under the law, which allows the police to arrest people without charge, permits the government to ban political organizations, and makes it illegal for more than five people to gather without a permit from the government.

Even the U.S. government confirmed the regime’s atrocious record when the 2009 State Department Human Rights Report submitted to Congress in March 2010 stated, “Police, security personnel, and prison guards often tortured and abused prisoners and detainees, sometimes in cases of detentions under the Emergency Law, which authorizes incommunicado detention indefinitely.”

Said’s case is hardly unique. A recent report published by the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights documented 46 torture cases and 17 cases of death by government secret police between June 2008 and February 2009.

Since his murder the case of Khaled Said has become the cause célèbre for Egypt’s youth. Hundreds of thousands of young people across Egypt have watched related online videos, songs, raps, sketches, or participated in group chat room discussions. A simple Google search of his name yields millions of results, almost all anti-government.

One of the groups that embraced this cause was the April 6 Youth Movement. It started as an Egyptian Facebook group founded by Human Resources specialist Isra’a Abdel Fattah, 29, and civil engineer Ahmed Maher, 30, in spring 2008 to support the April 6 workers strike in el-Mahalla el-Kobra, an industrial town along the Nile Delta.

On their Facebook page, they encouraged thousands to protest and join the labor strike. Within weeks, over 100,000 members joined the group, who were predominantly young, educated, and politically inexperienced or inactive. Moreover, by making extensive use of online networking tools, they urged their members to demonstrate their support for the workers by wearing black, staying at home, or boycotting products on the day of the strike.

As the secret police cracked down on the April 6 labor strikers, both Abdel Fattah and Maher were arrested, tortured (in the case of Maher, threatened with rape), and detained for a few weeks. Both came out of the prison experience more committed to the cause of freedom and democracy, as well as more determined than ever to carry on with their program of political reforms.

Asma’a Mahfouz, 26, a petite Business Administration graduate, is another prominent figure in the April 6 Youth Movement. By her account she did not have any political training or ideology before joining the group in March 2008. With her two colleagues she immediately helped set up the Facebook page urging Egyptians to support and join the strikes.

More significantly, Mahfouz played a critical role in the mobilization efforts for the current popular revolution. She posted passionate daily online videos imploring her countrymen and women to participate in the protests. In a recent interview, she elucidated her role when she stated, “I was printing and distributing leaflets in popular areas, and calling for citizens to participate. In those areas, I also talked to young people about their rights, and the need for their participation.”

She continued, “At the time when many people were setting themselves on fire, I went into Tahrir Square with several members of the movement, and we tried a spontaneous demonstration to protest against the recurrence of these incidents. However, the security forces prevented us and removed us from the Square. This prompted me to film a video clip, featuring my voice and image, calling for a protest.”

“I said that on the 25th of January, I would be an Egyptian girl defending her dignity and her rights. I broadcasted the video on the Internet, via Facebook, and was surprised by its unprecedented distribution over websites and mobile phones. Subsequently, I made four further videos prior to the date of the protest,” she added.

If Maher is the movement’s national coordinator, Muhammad Adel, 22, a college junior majoring in computer science, is its technology wizard and media coordinator. Online he jokingly calls himself “The dead Dean,” in a reference to his young age and what could be in store for him from the secret police.

In November 2008, he was arrested at the age of twenty, detained and placed in solitary confinement for over 100 days because of his political activities on the Internet. He was denied any means of communications with his family during the whole period. His interrogators pleaded with him to stop blogging so he could be freed. He refused to give them any commitment until he was freed in March 2009.

According to the “April 6 Youth” movement’s platform, its main concerns include promoting political reforms and democratic governance through a strategy of non-violence; constitutional reforms in the areas of civil rights, political freedoms, and judicial independence; and economically addressing poverty, unemployment, social justice and fighting corruption. Their focus is primarily the youth and students. Their means of communications, education and mobilization relies on the extensive use of technology and the Internet.

Wael Ghoneim, 30, a brilliant communications engineer, has been working for several years in Dubai, U.A.E, as Google marketing director for the Middle East and North Africa. As a consequence of the murder of Khaled Said by Mubarak’s regime, he was enraged and created the popular Facebook page “We are all Khaled Said.” A few days before the current uprising he left Dubai to Cairo so he could be part of the historical events.

As the administrator of the popular webpage, Ghoneim was instrumental in the online mobilization efforts of the Jan. 25 uprising. So on the evening of Jan. 27, four plain-clothes secret police officers kidnapped him during the protest, an event that was captured on tape. For the next twelve days the government refused to acknowledge that he was arrested until the newly appointed Prime Minister announced his release on Feb. 7 as a gesture to the demonstrators because of his popularity and prominence in the youth movement.

Upon his release, Ghoneim said that he was kept blindfolded and in isolation the entire time he was in detention as he was interrogated about his role in the uprising. After his release he gave an emotional TV interview calling the three hundred people that have lost their lives during the popular revolution the real heroes of Egypt.

Furthermore, one of the most articulate voices of Egypt’s revolution is thirty-seven year old Nawwara Nagm. Since her graduation as an English literature major, she has been a well-known political activist as well as a severe critic of Mubarak’s regime working as a journalist and blogger for opposition newspapers. In 1995 she was first arrested and sent to prison at the age of twenty-two because she protested the inclusion of Israel in Cairo’s annual Book Fair.

Both of her parents are also well known in Egyptian society. Her father, Ahmad Fuad Nagm, 81, is perhaps the most popular poet in Egypt today. He has been in and out of prison during most of the past five decades (during the reigns of Nasser, Sadat, and Mubarak) because of his political and satirical poems that directly attack not only the regime but also its head. Her mother is Safinaz Kazem who broke many barriers as a female journalist. Educated in the U.S. in the 1960’s, she became one of the most respected literary and film critics and political analysts publishing in major Egyptian newspapers and magazines.

Since the uprising began on Jan. 25, Nawwara has been an eloquent spokesperson expressing the steadfast political demands of the organizers and protesters, and in the process mobilizing the support of millions of Egyptians and Arabs who are constantly following the revolution on Al-Jazeera and other satellite networks.

On Sunday Feb. 6, the youth groups that spearheaded Egypt’s revolution formed a coalition called the “Unified Leadership of the Youth of the Rage Revolution.” It consisted of five groups with a grassroots base and are considered the backbone of the organized activities of the revolution.

The coalition includes two representatives from each of the April 6 Youth Movement, the Justice and Freedom Group, the Popular Campaign to Support El-Baradei, the Democratic Front Party, and the popular Muslim Brotherhood Movement. In addition four independent members were also added to the leadership for a total of fourteen members. Maher, the coordinator of the April 6 movement, and Ghoneim, an independent, were elected to the leadership. All members are from the youth in their late 20s or early 30s.

Ahmed Naguib, 33, a key protest organizer, has explained how the leadership was formed. He said, “There are people from the April 6 and Khaled Said movement,” referring to groups that worked non-stop to set off the uprising. Speaking of some opposition parties that want to hijack the revolution or negotiate on its behalf, he said, “They talk a lot about what the youth has done, but they continue on the same path as the government, marginalizing young people - except for the Muslim Brotherhood and El-Baradei group."

Coalition spokesperson is attorney Ziad Al-Olaimai, 32, from the Popular Campaign to Support El-Baradei. He read a statement on behalf of the coalition at a news conference that laid out their seven demands, namely: the resignation of Mubarak, the immediate lifting of emergency law, release of all political prisoners, the dissolution of both upper and lower chambers of parliament, the formation of a national unity government to manage the transitional period, investigation by the judiciary of the abuses of the security forces during the revolution, and the protection of the protesters by the military.

Muhammad Abbas, 26, is another leader of the coalition representing the youth of the Muslim Brotherhood movement (MB). After initial hesitation at the beginning of the uprising, the MB has brought since Jan. 28 tens of thousands of its supporters to join and help organize the efforts in Tahrir Square as well as in other demonstrations across the country.

On Feb. 2, government goons were beating up, throwing Molotov cocktails, and shooting at the demonstrators. Some of the female demonstrators under siege called Muslim Brotherhood leaders Mohammad El-Biltagi and Esam El-Erian pleading for help. Both leaders rushed to Tahrir Square after midnight leading over five thousand MB members to break the siege.

Dr. Sally Tooma Moore, 32, a Christian Copt and an independent member of the coalition’s leadership, is an Egyptian-British medical doctor. Under gunfire, she helped save hundreds of lives using a makeshift hospital in a Cairo mosque during the violent attacks of the security forces and the outlaws sponsored by the ruling party.

In a recent interview she demonstrated the unity of all Egyptians, Muslims and Copts when she said, “It's totally beyond description how the mosque has been transformed into a working hospital. It is a mosque but there are no religious divisions.” Her answer to a question by Al-Jazeera about the regime’s assertion regarding the lack of stability in the country was, “What is stability without freedom?”

Revolution and counter-revolution: A test of two wills

Since the inception of the popular revolution on Jan. 25, the regime’s reaction has gone through many typical stages. The first phase was the customary use of security crackdown and utilization of police brutality, which yielded over three hundred people killed and five thousand injured.

A list of the people killed by the regime since Jan. 25 was published on the opposition’s magazine website, Al-Dustoor. It shows that over seventy per cent of those killed were under the age of 32, including children as young as ten, with female casualties constituting about ten percent of the total.

During this stage, the regime cut off all Internet, mobile phone, and instant messaging services in a frantic attempt to disrupt communications and information exchange between the organizers of the revolution. But the genie was already out of the bottle.

When that failed miserably, and in a desperate attempt to end the uprising, the regime created a state of chaos by withdrawing the police and security forces from the streets including from neighborhood police stations, while releasing thousands of criminals from prisons around the country hoping to spread terror and fear as a substitute to stability and order as the beleaguered president warned in his first address.

The formation of popular committees to protect the neighborhoods coupled with the arrest of the thugs roaming the streets was able to defeat this deplorable scheme. The thugs that were arrested by these committees were handed over to army units deployed throughout the country.

The next stage was a tactical retreat by the government, occurring as the embattled president tried to deflect the popular call for his immediate resignation. Four days after the commencement of the uprising and the subsequent crackdown, he gave an address dismissing his cabinet; mainly sacking his Interior minister as well as other corrupt businessmen who were doubling as ministers of major industrial sectors of the economy.

He appointed his old Air Force colleague, Gen. Ahmad Shafiq, as the new Prime Minister while still incredibly retaining eighteen ministers in the cabinet. He also appointed his long-serving intelligence chief, Gen. Omar Suleiman, as his first ever Vice President so he could be the face of the regime in leading a “dialogue” with the opposition to enact “political reforms.” But these acts were considered too little too late by the revolutionaries, and were rejected outright. In their eyes, he had lost his legitimacy when the first protester was shot dead on Jan. 25.

Within days, the regime offered many sacrificial lambs in the hope that public anger would subside. The ruling party that Mubarak has headed for decades, the National Democratic Party (NDP), was overhauled. All senior leaders, including his son Gamal, were purged. Many corrupt businessmen, who were considered influential party members just before the revolution, were now under investigation by the state prosecutor and prohibited from travel. A few were put under house arrest. Still the angry public was not satisfied, continuing to call on Mubarak to leave.

Moreover, throughout the popular protests the regime used all means to taint the main organizers of the revolution. First, they claimed that the protesters were members of the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood. This claim while parroted by American Islamophobes and right-wing media, was never taken seriously in Egypt. It was clear to all that the main organizers did not belong to any political party or ideology. In fact, the MB did not join the protests until the Day of Rage on Friday, Jan. 28.

Then the state media repeated the claims that the organizers were agents of foreign powers, financed and manipulated by a foreign hidden agenda. The accusers could not make up their mind. They accused them of working for Iran, Qatar, Hezbollah, Hamas, the U.S. and Israel.

In one instance, state media falsely claimed to have obtained seven Wikileaks documents that showed a conspiracy between Qatar (read Al-Jazeera), the U.S. and Israel to de-stabilize Egypt. Why the U.S. and Israel would undermine a staunch ally like Mubarak was never addressed.

Najat Abdul-Rahman, a journalist in a state-owned magazine called 24 Hours, admitted to her boss that she was pressured by the regime to call a pro-government TV station and falsely claim to be one of the organizers of the protests. She then claimed on air that she and other fellow organizers were trained in the U.S. and Qatar by the Israeli Mossad to spread chaos in Egypt. Although she tried to change her appearance and mask her voice while on camera, her colleagues at the magazine were able to identify her and reveal her identity. She has been suspended without pay pending an investigation.

The regime then turned its fury against the media. It stripped the broadcasting license of Al-Jazeera and withdrew the accreditation of all its correspondents. It also started arresting, harassing, and beating up foreign journalists including CNN’s Anderson Cooper, ABC’s Christiane Amanpour, and CBS’s Katie Couric. This prompted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to declare, “This is a violation of international norms that guarantee freedom of the press. And it is unacceptable under any circumstances.” Egyptian journalist Ahmad Mahmoud was killed after being shot point blank while taking a photograph.

With intense international pressure mounting, Mubarak gave a second address in which he promised not to seek re-election for a sixth six-year term this September, but nonetheless he refused to bow out and resign. Throughout the crisis, he tried to portray a false image of being confidant and in charge. But clearly the ego of this dictator was bruised as he was denounced daily by millions of his people.

By the end of the first week, it was clear that the stubborn president would not listen to anyone. He was able to at least secure the neutrality of the army, which was not prepared to turn against the people. But it was still loyal to its long-serving commander-in-chief, and would not depose him.

Meanwhile, Vice President Suleiman moved quickly to contain the political fallout of the revolution, and invited the opposition parties for a dialogue including the regime’s nemesis, the MB. Although all opposition groups initially echoed the street demand of Mubarak’s ouster, some groups, which had very little public following, gladly joined Suleiman hoping to have a seat at the table and to get some attention.

But everyone knew that without the participation of the youth movement or the MB, any dialogue with the regime would be meaningless. While the youth steadfastly maintained their position of “no dialogue unless Mubarak is out,” the MB fell into the trap of the regime and participated, along with many other opposition groups, in a dialogue with Suleiman.

It was a classic trap. More than forty opposition members entered a room where a huge portrait of Mubarak hung on the wall, a slap across the face of millions of Egyptians who were chanting for his ouster in the past ten days. It was clear that Suleiman was in charge of the meeting as he chaired the session and dictated the agenda. The groups were guests in his house. Not a great start.

At any rate, the regime did not give an inch. Suleiman even refused to entertain discussing the idea of Mubarak’s ouster. He simply reiterated all the “concessions” given by Mubarak in his earlier speeches including cosmetic changes to the constitution, and pledging that Mubarak would not run in the next presidential elections.

It is not clear why the MB participated, but most observers believe that the group sought legitimacy after being outlawed since 1954. It is ironic that the group would seek legitimacy from a regime that has just been de-legitimized by its people.

Upon the end of the meeting, the regime immediately issued a communiqué that thanked Mubarak, and reiterated the regime’s perspective and interpretation of events. It claimed inaccurately that all participants agreed on the road map towards finding a solution to the “crisis,” which was based on limited reforms to the constitution and elections, while maintaining all state institutions and characters including the fraudulent parliament. It did not promise the immediate lifting of the emergency law. Ironically, a day after the dialogue Suleiman declared on national TV that “Egypt is not ready for democracy.” So much for a reform agenda.

The MB leaders who attended the meeting held a press conference afterwards that not only contradicted Suleiman’s assertions, but also previous statements given by other MB leaders such as Abdul Monem Abu-el-Futooh, who maintained the original stand of no negotiations until Mubarak’s ouster. It seems that for a perceived short-term gain, the MB was looking weak and confused. A day later the MB rejected Suleiman’s characterization of the talks and renewed its demand for Mubarak’s ouster.

Meanwhile, the Youth leadership in Tahrir Square immediately rejected Suleiman’s offer and proclamations. They declared that they were neither party to any agreement nor willing to consider any proposals until Mubarak is removed. For the previous twelve days they have been able to mobilize over ten million Egyptians in the streets, why should they compromise on their first demand? They asked rhetorically. The will of the people shall be respected, and must defeat the stubbornness of Mubarak and his regime, they declared. After fifteen days the crowds have been sharply on the rise all over the country. Daily they number in the millions from all walks of life.

Checkmate: Revolution legitimacy trumps an archaic constitution

For a day, the declared results of the so-called dialogue by the regime created breathing space for the feeble regime to recover. On Monday Feb. 7, the U.S. and its European allies, which for days had been hinting and pushing for Mubarak’s resignation, suddenly changed their stand and accepted for Mubarak to stay until September in order to allow for “a constitutional transfer of power.”

On Feb. 8, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowly stated, “if President Mubarak stepped down today, under the existing constitution, … there would have to be an election within 60 days. A question that that would pose is whether Egypt today is prepared to have a competitive, open election.”

In effect, supporters of the revolution feared that its momentum might slow down, a stalemate may come to pass.

Since the uprising began, Mubarak has been hiding behind the new face of the regime, Gen. Suleiman. The U.S, Israel and other Western countries strongly prefer him over any other candidates to maintain the status quo and “stability,” in order to keep the current balance of power in the region, which is hugely in favor of Israel.

Newly released Wikileaks documents reveal that Suleiman has been a long-standing favorite by the U.S. and Israel to succeed Mubarak for many years. The London Daily Telegraph recently published leaked cables from American embassies in Cairo and Tel Aviv showing the close cooperation between the Egyptian Vice President and the U.S. and Israeli governments.

The newspaper described that “One cable in August 2008, stated that “Hacham was full of praise for Suleiman, and noted that a ‘hot line’ set up between the MOD and Egyptian General Intelligence Service is now in daily use,” in reference to David Hacham, a senior adviser from the Israeli Ministry of Defense.

In another cable, Tel Aviv diplomats added: “We defer to Embassy Cairo for analysis of Egyptian succession scenarios, but there is no question that Israel is most comfortable with the prospect of Omar Suleiman.” Moreover, the paper stated that “the files suggest that Mr. Suleiman wanted Hamas isolated, and thought Gaza should go hungry but not starve.”

Regardless, the organizers of the revolution declared that they have no trust in the regime. They asked rhetorically how could they trust a Vice President whose loyalty is to a discredited and illegitimate president. Thus they firmly rejected not only Suleiman and his parameters for a way forward, but also the premise that any real change would come from adhering to a constitution that has been shredded many time by an illegitimate regime. They advocated a position that called for the legitimacy of the revolution over any outdated constitutional legitimacy.

The youth leaders maintain that all institutions of state power, except the army, which on the surface declared its neutrality, have lost their legitimacy in lieu of the will of the people to support the revolution. They insisted that the people have already spoken and called for Mubarak’s ouster, the dissolution of parliament, the replacement of the government, and the formation of constitutional experts to re-write a new constitution. Therefore, all efforts by the regime to re-constitute itself through promised reforms to maintain its grip on power are illegitimate and rejected. This is a popular revolution not a protest, they maintained.

As the government attempts to weather the storm and deal with Tahrir Square as a Hyde Park phenomenon, a place where people vent their frustrations, the leadership of the revolution has devised new tactics to force the regime to accept their demands.

They have called for massive demonstrations not only in public squares but also called for similar protests around strategic governmental buildings. For example, on Feb. 8 in addition to a million demonstrators in Tahrir Square, hundreds of thousands held huge demonstrations around the Prime Minster’s building, preventing him from reaching his office. They also blocked the parliament, preventing any member from going in or out. They vowed that soon the presidential palace would be surrounded.

The protesters were also joined this week with professional syndicates and labor unions. Hundreds of judges stood in Tahrir Square on Tuesday wearing their judicial robes in support of the revolution. Similarly, hundreds of journalists chased away the pro-government head of their union declaring the union independent and free. Likewise, hundreds of university professors from colleges across Egypt showed up at Tahrir Square declaring their full support for the goals of the revolution.

Next week schools and universities will be back from the Spring break. The organizers plan to call on hundreds of thousands of students to participate in the demonstrations that could paralyze the whole education system. Meanwhile, they have also reached out to labor unions calling for massive strikes across the nation, especially in state factories and public industries. When this is fully implemented, Egypt’s export business could come to a screeching halt.

Slowly but surely selected major industries such as transportation, oil, or navigation through the Suez Canal could also be severely hindered. Sports activities have already ceased. The film industry has stopped all productions. There is no end to what activities the revolutionaries could advocate or call for. The initiatives are in their hands. They believe that they have the legitimacy and the support of the people.

In short, the revolution has adapted to the maneuvering of the regime and has adopted a comprehensive program of activities that are creative and extensive. Time is no longer on the regime’s side. With the passing of each week more Egyptians are joining the revolution. A culture of freedom and empowerment is on the rise.

Meanwhile, the international community could speed up the inevitable, which is the collapse of the corrupt and repressive regime. Last week the Guardian and several financial publications including the Wall Street Journal and MSNBC, showed that Mubarak’s family might be worth between $40 to $70 Billion. Most of this wealth is believed to be in the U.S, the U.K, Switzerland, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. In short, Western governments have access to ill-gotten money that belong to the Egyptian people. They can start investigations to determine the legality of these assets.

Similarly, they can encourage Mr. Mubarak to go to Germany for his annual (extended) medical check-up, after which he could render his resignation. The people of Egypt would not forget who stood with them during their revolution, who stood against them, and who was on the sideline.

When Mahfouz, the revolution’s video blogger was asked what her expectations are now after the massive demonstrations, she answered, “All Egyptians, not only the protestors, have broken through the fear barrier. I expect only one outcome - protests will continue until Mubarak steps down from power.”

Mubarak and his Western backers better take notice. Checkmate.

Esam Al-Amin can be reached at alamin1919@gmail.com


http://www.counterpunch.org/alamin02082011.html

_________________
"So long as the people do not exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves to any number of gods, religions or otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men. All great truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Midde Ooste
Post Number:#10  PostPosted: 14 Feb 2011, 16:20 
Offline
Koedoe
Koedoe
User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2010, 20:38
Posts: 688
Location: Tzaneen
Mubarak regime abused 50,000 homeless children in Cairo, reporter says
By Nathan Diebenow
Monday, February 14th, 2011 -- 12:14 am

Thousands of children that live in the streets of Cairo, Egypt, were brutally abused under the regime of President Hosni Mubarak, a Middle East correspondent recently wrote.

Image
"They are everywhere in the capital, the 50,000 street children of Cairo, Mubarak's shameful, unspoken legacy, the detritus of the poor and the defenceless, orphans and outcasts, glue-sniffers, many of them drug-addicted, as young as five, the girls often arrested and – according to the children and charity workers – sexually molested by the police," Robert Fisk of The Independent said Sunday.

Fisk detailed a scene in which a Cairo police officer shot a 16-year-old girl at the peak of the mass protests that would eventually lead to Mubarak's toppling. The girl - Mariam - was with a hundred other homeless children attempting to obtain the release of her friend at a police station.

"She was taking pictures of the police on her mobile phone, but fell to the ground with a bullet in her back," he wrote, continuing, "The other children carried her to the nearby Mounira hospital – where the staff apparently refused to admit her – and then to the Ahmed Maher hospital, where the bullet was removed."

But her friend was not so lucky; after his release, Ismail was later shot dead by armed gunman.

Up to 12,000 homeless children joined on the front lines to openly resist authorities during the Egyptian revolution, Fisk said, noting that the pro-democracy demonstrators won them over gifts of money, cigarettes and food.

"I liked going [to Tahrir Square]," a teenage street boy told Fisk. "I sometimes begged from the people. And the soldiers always said 'hello' to me and sometimes they gave me food."

Some children, Fisk noted, unwittingly threw stones at pro-democracy protesters with the encouragement of Mubarak supporters.

"They told me that I should like Mubarak because if he went, some people would come from other countries and become president of Egypt," a boy said.

The Egyptian military now running the country is to ban public protests and meetings of activists starting this week. The armed forces had previously promised that democratic election would take place by September.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/14/m ... rter-says/

_________________
"So long as the people do not exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves to any number of gods, religions or otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men. All great truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Midde Ooste
Post Number:#11  PostPosted: 14 Feb 2011, 16:23 
Offline
Koedoe
Koedoe
User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2010, 20:38
Posts: 688
Location: Tzaneen
Abbas’ Palestinian cabinet to resign amid Arab revolutions, sources say

By Reuters
Sunday, February 13th, 2011 -- 6:55 pm

RAMALLAH, West Bank – The Palestinian cabinet will tender resignations Monday after which Prime Minister Salam Fayyad will select new ministers at the request of President Mahmoud Abbas, political sources said.

The shake-up, disclosed to Reuters Sunday, was long demanded by Fayyad and some in Abbas's Fatah faction. It follows the fall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to a popular revolt that has set off reform calls throughout the Arab world.

"There will be massive change in the composition of the government," one political source said of the planned mass-resignations in Abbas's Palestinian Authority, which was formed under 1993 interim peace deals with Israel.

Another source said: "Dr. Fayyad will immediately start his discussion with the factions to form the cabinet. Some ministers will keep their portfolios."

The Mochila story continues below.

Abbas' cabinet to resign on Monday: sources

REUTERS
Reuters US Online Report World News

Feb 13, 2011 15:07 EST

RAMALLAH, West Bank (Reuters) - The Palestinian cabinet will tender resignations Monday after which Prime Minister Salam Fayyad will select new ministers at the request of President Mahmoud Abbas, political sources said.

The shake-up, disclosed to Reuters Sunday, was long demanded by Fayyad and some in Abbas's Fatah faction. It follows the fall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to a popular revolt that has set off reform calls throughout the Arab world.

"There will be massive change in the composition of the government," one political source said of the planned mass-resignations in Abbas's Palestinian Authority, which was formed under 1993 interim peace deals with Israel.

Another source said: "Dr. Fayyad will immediately start his discussion with the factions to form the cabinet. Some ministers will keep their portfolios."

Bankrolled by international donors and engaged in security coordination with Israel, the Palestinian Authority has a limited mandate in the occupied West Bank. It lost control of the Gaza Strip to Hamas Islamists in a 2007 civil war.

Abbas's credibility has been further sapped by long-stalled negotiations with Israel on an accord founding a Palestinian state. Hamas spurns permanent coexistence with the Jewish state.

Of the 24 posts in Fayyad's cabinet, only 16 are currently staffed. Two ministers resigned and six are marooned in Gaza. Of those present in the cabinet, some face allegations of incompetence.

The Palestinian Authority announced Saturday it would seek new legislative and presidential elections by September but Hamas rejected that call and said it would not take part in the poll, nor recognize the results.

(Reporting by Mohammed Assadi and Ali Sawafta; Editing by Elizabeth Fullerton)

Source: Reuters US Online Report World News
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/13/a ... urces-say/

_________________
"So long as the people do not exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves to any number of gods, religions or otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men. All great truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Midde Ooste
Post Number:#12  PostPosted: 14 Feb 2011, 16:35 
Offline
Koedoe
Koedoe
User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2010, 20:38
Posts: 688
Location: Tzaneen
Gaddafi suggested Palestinians revolt against Israel
By Reuters
Sunday, February 13th, 2011 -- 8:00 pm

TRIPOLI – Palestinian refugees should capitalize on the wave of popular revolts in the Middle East by massing peacefully on the borders of Israel until it gives in to their demands, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi said on Sunday.

Gaddafi is respected in many parts of the Arab world for his uncompromising criticism of Israel and Arab leaders who have dealings with the Jewish state, though some people in the region dismiss his initiatives as unrealistic.

He was giving his first major speech since a popular uprising in neighboring Egypt forced President Hosni Mubarak to resign, an event which electrified the Arab world and prompted speculation that other Arab governments could also be toppled.

"Fleets of boats should take Palestinians ... and wait by the Palestinian shores until the problem is resolved," Gaddafi was shown saying on state television. "This is a time of popular revolutions."

"We need to create a problem for the world. This is not a declaration of war. This is a call for peace," he said in a speech given to mark the birthday of the Prophet Mohamed, a holy day in the Islamic calendar.

He also said: "All Arab states which have relations with Israel are cowardly regimes."


Gaddafi tells Palestinians: revolt against Israel
Ali Shuaib and Salah Sarrar
Reuters US Online Report Top News
Feb 13, 2011 17:37 EST

TRIPOLI (Reuters) - Palestinian refugees should capitalize on the wave of popular revolts in the Middle East by massing peacefully on the borders of Israel until it gives in to their demands, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi said on Sunday.

Gaddafi is respected in many parts of the Arab world for his uncompromising criticism of Israel and Arab leaders who have dealings with the Jewish state, though some people in the region dismiss his initiatives as unrealistic.

He was giving his first major speech since a popular uprising in neighboring Egypt forced President Hosni Mubarak to resign, an event which electrified the Arab world and prompted speculation that other Arab governments could also be toppled.

"Fleets of boats should take Palestinians ... and wait by the Palestinian shores until the problem is resolved," Gaddafi was shown saying on state television. "This is a time of popular revolutions."

"We need to create a problem for the world. This is not a declaration of war. This is a call for peace," he said in a speech given to mark the birthday of the Prophet Mohamed, a holy day in the Islamic calendar.

He also said: "All Arab states which have relations with Israel are cowardly regimes."

Palestinians have long demanded that refugees who fled or were forced to leave in the war of Israel's creation in 1948 should be allowed to return, along with their descendants.

Israel says any resettlement of Palestinian refugees must occur outside of its borders.

ISLAMIST MILITANTS

Gaddafi also issued a call to Muslim countries to join forces against Western powers. He said the world was divided into white, denoting the United States, Europe and their allies, and green for the Muslim world.

"The white color has decided to get rid of the green color," Gaddafi said. "These countries should be united against the white color because all of these white countries are the enemies of Islam."

He said violent acts committed by Osama Bin Laden's al Qaeda network went against Islam because they killed innocent people. But he said there was a political explanation for the emergence of militant Islamists.

"Why did this movement emerge? Regardless of its behavior, in my analysis this movement appeared in response to the American arrogance toward the Islamic nation and in response to its hegemony of the Islamic world," Gaddafi said.

"It was a response to ... the submission of rulers in the Islamic world, the subservience of rulers in the Islamic world to this arrogance from Europe and the United States," he said.

Gaddafi has for decades challenged what he describes as Western imperialism. His oil exporting country spent years under international sanctions for seeking banned weapons and sponsoring militant groups.

These were lifted in 2004 when Gaddafi renounced his previous activities, though he still frequently deploys his colorful rhetoric against the West.

(Additional reporting by Souhail Karam in Rabat; Writing by Christian Lowe; Editing by Jon Boyle)

Source: Reuters US Online Report Top News

_________________
"So long as the people do not exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves to any number of gods, religions or otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men. All great truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC + 2 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Locations of visitors to this page SA Topsites :: Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group