West Underestimates Moral Strength Of Iran, At Its Own Peril

http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/hub.1326407570.html
by Allen L Roland

The west underestimates the true moral strength of Iran at its own peril for Iran’s character and ancient Persian roots will not cave in to demonization, fear and sanctions and are far more likely to follow the words of their greatest poet, Rumi ~ Everyone is so afraid of death, but the real Sufis just laugh: nothing tyrannizes their hearts. What strikes the oyster shell does not damage the pearl.

The more I interact with Iranians, especially in my capacity as an online columnist and frequent interviews with Press TV, ~ the more I realize how resilient Iranians are and unafraid of an obvious policy of forced Regime Change by the West in their quest for oil and natural gas to fuel their on going imperialistic agenda and war machine.
Obama’s own words during his recent State Of The Union pep rally demonstrate hison going efforts to demonize Iran for all the old and worn out political reasons ~ “ and we will safeguard America’s own security against those who threaten our citizens, our friends, and our interests. Look at Iran. Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program now stands as one. The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent. Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.” ( We’re still in control, so don’t rock the boat )

This is simply hot air and empty threats for the politically gullible and then Obama goes on to justify American imperialism and exceptionalness with these self-righteous words of bluster and hypocrisy ~ “ From the coalitions we’ve built to secure nuclear materials, to the missions we’ve led against hunger and disease; from the blows we’ve dealt to our enemies; to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back. Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about….. Yes, the world is changing; no, we can’t control every event. But America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs – and as long as I’m President, I intend to keep it that way.” ( In other words, it’s our way or the highway )

President Obama is now at the laughable stage of denial where he is drinking his own Kool-Aid and fails to see that the so called War on Terror has finally revealed the true culprit which is the West’s War of Terror, often operating under the guise of NATO, which is still committed to illegal preemptive regime change ~ and now has Iran in its sights.

Obama’s faux populism is brilliantly captured by Robert Scheer who wrote ~ “ l admit it: Listening to Barack Obama, I am ready to enlist in his campaign against the feed-the-rich Republicans … until I recall that I once responded in the same way to Bill Clinton’s faux populism. And then I get angry because betrayal by the “good guys” for whom I have ended up voting has become the norm.” See article ~

With the desire to better understand the 70 million Iranian people as well astheir rich culture and heritage ~ I recently watched Rick Steves outstanding presentation on Iran after he spent a few weeks there in 2008. It verified that not everything we hear about Iran is true, nor is everything we hear false, but even the truth out of context can be misleading.

If you ask a politician about Iran they’re likely to tell you what you already think you know, Iran is bad, they’re working on nuclear weapons, they did some horrible thing in 1979, and they’re all religious fanatics. If you ask John McCain, in particular, he might sing “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” again and make us all laugh or gasp in horror.

Turn to the main stream media for answers on Iran and you’ll hear pretty much hear the same thing.
But ask an objective travel writer, like the personable Rick Steves, about Iran and he’ll tell you about the people of Iran. He’ll tell you about their character and the culture and the things we’ve never thought about as well as their deep fundamentalist faith ~ where they proudly see themselves as Persians, not Arabs.

With the war drums beating again against Iran, let us get to know a little something about the PEOPLE who will bear the brunt of that war, should it ever come to pass and remember Steves’ words when he says ~ “ Don’t underestimate the strength and unity of the Iranian people, if invaded or attacked, they will fight until the last person dies”

58 minute Video:

People of the world don’t look at themselves, and so they blame one another: Rumi

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Hamas Sources Deny Politburo’s Move from Damascus

Local Editor

A Hamas movement sources denied in an interview with Al-Manar Website allegations that the movement’s political bureau will be moved from Damascus, “at least for the time being.”

However, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri refused to comment on the news, adding that the movement will issue an official statement to clarify what some news agencies have circulated.

Reuters news agency claimed that the head of Hamas Political Bureau Khaled Meshaal has effectively left his headquarters in the Syrian capital, Damascus.

The agency quoted diplomatic and intelligence sources that Meshaal is not staying in Syria as he used to do “there’s still a Hamas presence there, but it’s insignificant.”

“The expected residence for Meshaal is Qatar where he may stay most of the time until the Syria smoke has cleared,” Reuters quoted the sources as saying.

A Palestinian official in Gaza told AFP that Hamas will not close its offices in Damascus and will not leave the country. “Although for reasons of security some leaders may feel obliged at times to leave the country,” he said.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

PA Political Terminology 101: When Talks Are Not Talks

Posted on 25/01/2012

by reham alhelsi

In the last couple of weeks, we have been extra blessed with the faces of various PA officials appearing almost every day to comment, give interviews or talks, in which they declare, confirm and strongly stress that what is happening in Amman are not negotiations. No, these are not negotiations.

• These are talks.
• These are discussions.
• These are exploratory meetings (whatever that might mean).
• These are breakfasts in Amman.
• These are negotiation-less nights in Amman.
• These are “how to sell out your country in 20 years” upgrade courses.

But they are not negotiations.

This ass licking

And they should know better, right? In fact, the negotiations-till-death-do-us-part team stressed several times that there will be no return to negotiations until the Zionist entity agrees to stop its illegal settlement activities in the future PA “state”. What is happening in Amman are talks, not negotiations, talks to secure a settlement freeze before the talks on settlements and other stuff, aka the negotiations, resume. See? There is a big difference between talks and talks, and before you judge the PA, you should have read their negotiations handbook: “Birth is Negotiations, Death is Negotiations and all that is in between is Negotiations”, and you would have understood that what is happening in Amman are not negotiations. No, they are talks.

The audacity with which the PA continues to act as if these are not negotiations and continues to stress that negotiations won’t be resumed until Israel agrees to freeze its settlement activities, knows no limits. And despite all forms of protest against these useless negotiations, against the whole negotiations charade, not only do PA officials continue to negotiate, but they also claim that they are negotiating away our land and our rights in our very own name, claiming to be our representatives. And as if not enough, they appear on TV stations, give interviews, talk in local conferences and meetings and declare, in a very strict tone, that there will be no return to negotiations until Israel stops its illegal settlement activities. They swear never to return to negotiations, even if it means resigning, even if it means the collapse of the PA, and countless are the times when we heard the PA-head and the negotiations-head threatening with resignation. But still they continue to return to negotiations, under various names, and continue to threaten and swear never to return to negotiations, while there is not a glimmer of a sign of any resignation.

It is not the first time that PA officials have done this. Wasn’t it only recently that they, for the Xth time, swore never to return to negotiations unless Israel stops all its settlement activity? And when they, as usual, did return to the negotiations (for the sums they get for negotiating away our rights and our Palestine are more important than you, me, every single one of us, they are more important than Palestine itself), they stressed that it wasn’t a return to “direct” negotiations, but a return to “indirect” negotiations! As in: during “direct” negotiations, PA and Israeli officials meet, negotiate, aka Israelis dictate and PA officials nod and sign on napkins, attend a negotiations banquet together, and everyone gets a “direct-“negotiations-trip album as souvenir. During “indirect” negotiations, PA and Israeli officials meet, negotiate, aka Israelis dictate and PA officials nod and sign on napkins, attend a negotiations banquet together, and everyone gets an “indirect”-negotiations-trip album as souvenir. And today, PA officials again treat us, the Palestinian people, as if we were the little children who are easily fooled and tell us: “listen kids, we are not negotiating, we are talking! Wallahi, we swear not to go back to negotiations, so be quiet!”

And while PA officials “talk” in Amman, Palestinian politicians from various PLO factions return from the world beyond, bless us with their faces and voices after long silences and extended absence, and announce their denouncement of these talks, that they are not in the interest of the Palestinian people or the Palestinian cause, and then return back to their daily work of sitting in offices and claiming to represent people and parties and cashing salaries at the end of the month. God bless the PLO! They all claim to represent us, those who are members in the PLO, and those who aren’t or soon will be. And knowing that the majority of Palestinians is against these talks, discussions, negotiations, whatever they are called, they flip a coin and send someone to denounce the whole process, and that’s it: “We did what we do best: we condemned, we denounced”. Yes, all that matters these days is not Palestine, but the salary at the end of the month. God bless the PLO!

And since, according to the PA, talks are not negotiations, except when they are meant to mean so, I suggest preparing a dictionary of PA political terminology. It will help avoid misunderstandings and will help us, ordinary Palestinians, understand what PA negotiators are talking about since their language is beyond our comprehension and help us understand when talks are talks and when talks are not talks. A reference will be made to what every term actually means to the majority of the Palestinians. There are many such political terms out there that need clarifications, but I suggest starting with the following:

Al-Quds



1. Describes, according to the PA, the Areas Abu Dees and Izariyyeh, and depending on whether Israeli will “give back” Beit Hanina and Shu’fat to the Palestinians, which is most probably not, Sawahreh might be added to the area designated as Al-Quds.
2. The name Al-Quds is used to disguise the fact that when the PA talks about Al-Quds, it is not talking about the eastern part of Jerusalem, and thus won’t cause the anger or the distress of the PA’s partners-in-peace by demanding the liberation of Al-Quds.
3. PA plans to liberate Al-Quds include 15+ years of useless negotiations on everything except the main issues, building a hanging bridge to Al-Aqsa mosque, giving up the Old city of Jerusalem and other areas in exchange for more control in areas B and C so the PA can continue to play king and kingdom.
4. To many Palestinians, Al-Quds remains one, with its eastern and western parts, the only and irreplaceable capital of Palestine.

PA State

1. Describes the area Israel allows the PA president and officials to move within, using Israeli permits to leave and enter, usually areas A and B of the West Bank with possible loss of these areas depending on the mood of the Israeli soldier at the checkpoint or the mood of the Israeli official issuing the permit.
2. Also used to describe Swiss cheese, Bantustans, Ghettos, a prison within a prison.
3. To PA officials, the PA Palestinian state is any piece of Palestine the Israelis have no use of. The Motto of this PA state is: Life is Negotiations. The flag of this state is: My political party is above all. The national Anthem is: Hader ya Sidi! (yes, sir!).
4. To many Palestinians, the only Palestinian state is one with all of Palestine from the River to the Sea.

State-building

Jericho Casino

1. Describes the Jericho Casino, the Rawabi elite “city”, the Muqata’a imperial palace, and the Wadi in-Nar death-trap aka road.
2. This is accompanied with the introduction of night-clubs and bars in Ramallah, the political and economic capital of the PA, as signs of the approaching independence, 5 star hotels and cafes for PA officials, new-age revolutionaries and foreign aid workers.
3. Further signs of state-building include the destruction of local economy, the alarmingly growing dependence on foreign donors who enslave us in return for salaries at the end of the month, the various industrial zones for the enslavement of Palestinian workers, the wide-spread corruption and the building of massive palaces on the hilltops of Ramallah and Nablus whose shadow cools the hot air over the nearby refugee camps.
4. To many Palestinians, the PA state-building is nothing but a form of consolidating and securing the Israeli occupation.

Negotiations

1. Describes “Life” from the view point of PA top-negotiators; every minute of a PA-official’s life is negotiations, it is to the PA as natural as breathing, as drinking, as eating. Without negotiations, the PA will die, will cease to exit since the only reason for its creation is to negotiate away Palestinian land and rights “in the name of Palestinians”.
2. Has other names such as talks, discussions, exploratory meetings and any other term PA negotiators might think of.
3. Also refers to the condition where the oppressor dictates the rights of the oppressed and how much “freedom” and “space” the oppressed is allowed to have and not have.
4. To many Palestinians, negotiations describe the process of selling out one’s homeland, village by village, town by town, house by house, field by field, tree by tree, water drop by water drop, in exchange for an imaginary kingdom, imaginary titles, imaginary ministries, villas in Ramallah and the south of France, various accounts in Swiss banks and Israeli VIP-permits.

Peace process

1. Describes a never-ending process, where one party kills, steals and destroys the other party’s people and land. The word peace is deceptive since this particular peace process has nothing to do with peace. 2. To the PA, the term peace process means an industry, a big business and loads of money regardless of the suffering caused to the Palestinian people because of this process.
3. Also refer to a delusion, a mirage, a charade, a big fat lie.
4. To many Palestinians, the peace process is an instrument of the occupation to continue the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and the theft of Palestinian land.

Resignation

1. Describes a charade by PA officials. PA officials who resign or are made to resign over corruption cases, moral issues, etc., keep away from the spotlights, don’t give any interviews for a few weeks, or depending on the offence committed, for a few months, and then return to their posts, or other posts within the PA apparatus, and act as if nothing happened.
2. Another form of resignation is the recurring threats of the PA-head of resigning that are never actually implemented, e.g. threatening to resign if the Palestinian people tell him to do so (Note: they do this in every form possible, , not to mention that his “mandate” expired long ago), threatening to resign if negotiations prove futile (after 16 years still waiting for them to prove futile).
3. A term that is alien within the PA and PLO systems.
4. Also means: I am staying here till the last breath.
5. To many Palestinians, resignation is a card used by the PA to silence criticism and opposition.

Right of Return

1. Describes the Right of Return as redefined by the PA within the framework of the “peace process”:1. A return of some thousands or hundreds or whatever number of refugees Israel agrees to. 2. A return to Ramallah or Bethlehem or whatever part of the Bantustan aka the Palestinian state the Zionist entity agrees to.
2. To the PA, the Right of Return is negotiable, like all other Palestinian rights and its price depends on the highest bidder.
3. To many Palestinians, the Right of Return describes what is an inalienable and non-negotiable right for over 5 million Palestinian refugees who will never accept less than a full return to their original homes and villages.

Elections

1. Describes a process with international observers and all, after which, depending on the results, the choice of the voters will either be celebrated or ignored and boycotted. Following elections in the PA “liberated” areas, if the winners are opponents of the negotiations process, they get kidnapped by the Israeli occupation forces and the losers, if they believe that “Negotiations are the Solution”, they get to build cabinets with the claim that it’s all for the interest of the people.
2. One example of elections under PA is Local Elections, which are postponed from one year to the next, and most probably will never take place because they know they won’t win.
3. To many Palestinians, elections are a theoretical right bestowed on the Palestinians of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but practically denied all Palestinians in occupied Palestine and the Diaspora.
And yes, there is a special list of terminology for “activism for Palestine”, where Palestine, resistance, activism and other Palestinian constants are reshaped and redefined to fit what pleases and appeals to others. But that is another blog post.

© http://avoicefrompalestine.wordpress.com/

Fayyad participates in first international “Jerusalem” Marathon in Abu Dis

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Just like that! UN to Bashar Assad: ‘Leave in 15 days or else!’

Via FLC

‘The Cable has obtained a copy of the draft resolution on Syria currently being discussed inside the U.N. Security Council. It calls on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to hand over power to his deputy and says additional measures would be taken if he doesn’t comply within 15 days. 

U.N. Security Council diplomats are meeting behind closed doors on Friday to discuss what’s being called the Arab-European draft resolution on Syria. The Moroccan ambassador is presenting the draft resolution, which is designed to implement the recommendations of the Arab League transition plan laid out on Jan. 22… … 

Importantly, the draft resolution requests that U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon report on the implementation of the resolution every 15 days and also directs the Security Council “to review Syria’s implementation of this resolution [in] 15 days and, in the event that Syria has not complied, to adopt further measures, in consultation with the League of Arab States.”… 

She indicated the United States was hopeful that Russia, which has been openly supporting Assad and sending him weapons, will work with the rest of the Security Council to produce a resolution that is strong and effective. Russia and China vetoed European resolution on Syria last fall and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said Friday that Russia would veto any resolution that seeks to remove Assad from power…”

Posted by G, M, Z, or B at 1:00 AM

 

Pro-regime Syrians hail Russia (Day Life)

Russia vows to Block UN move on Syria’s al-Assad

(DP-News – agencies)

Russia vowed to block any United Nations Security Council resolution that calls for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to relinquish power.

Such demands “will simply never get approval,” Alexander Lukashevich, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, said by telephone from Moscow today.

“This should be a matter for dialogue between the Syrians themselves and shouldn’t be imposed through a resolution.” he added.

The Arab League, which has monitors in Syria, “should be facilitating dialogue” between President al-Assad and his opponents rather than trying to impose a solution, Lukashevich said.

Russia surprises West & proposes Syria resolution to strengthen UN involvement Russian Warships to Syrian waters Syrians Pro-regime “Support Rallies” U.S. against violence by Opposition or Regime in Syria

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Wednesday that his country wouldn’t back UN decisions that endorsed unilateral sanctions by Arab and Western states or opened the way for foreign armed intervention in Syria.

“We cannot support proposals under which unilateral sanctions are imposed against Syria without any consultations with Russia, China and other BRICS countries,” Lavrov said on Wednesday.

Calling the moves by the UN Security Council against Syria “unfair” and “counter-productive,” he said that Russia is also ready for dialogue with its partners in the Security Council.

Indeed, Russia presented its own draft of a UN resolution regarding Syria. And as Lavrov said, it remains on the table.

The UN Security Council is expected to vote over the next few days on the Western-Arab draft resolution aimed at making President al-Assad cede power, paving the way for a coalition government with the opposition.

­It comes as the Arab League’s monitoring mission to Syria suffered a setback after six countries pulled out, calling on the UN to act.

It is expected, however, that the new draft will replace the Russian text, which Western diplomats say is too weak and no longer relevant in light of the Arab League’s call for Assad to hand power to his deputy.

With reports of the continually growing death toll in the conflict, the earlier proposal being floated of increasing the numbers of observers on the ground and providing them with UN training could have been a lifesaving one. But now those plans have been put on hold.

The U.S. has criticized Russia for blocking sanctions against Syria and supplying weaponry to its Soviet-era ally. Syria received a shipment of Russian ammunition this month and has also signed a $550 million deal for 26 Yak-130 jet trainer aircraft, according to the Kommersant newspaper.

Russia has been wary of any UN-backed use of military action, such as the operation that eventually helped topple Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi.

UN diplomats say France, Britain and Germany have been working with Arab nations on a new Security Council resolution on Syria, the main goal of which, they say, is a democratic transition from President Bashar al-Assad’s 11-year regime.

Arab and Western nations are seeking to pass a UN resolution supporting the Arab League’s call for Assad to step down and facilitate a peaceful transfer of power. Russia, as a permanent Security Council member, can veto any resolution.

Qatar, the U.K. and the U.S. are among countries seeking to overcome Russian opposition to a change of regime in Syria, where at least 5,000 people have been killed in the past 10 months during the crackdown on anti-government unrest, according to the UN.

The latest UN resolution proposal “condemns the continued and gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms” by Syrian authorities and calls for President Bashar al-Assad to implement Arab League resolutions for a “political transition,” according to a copy of the document obtained by Bloomberg.

But their appeal to the UN does not seem to change the situation radically, as Russia remains firmly opposed to intervention and the imposition of sanctions against Syria.

Russia in October vetoed by a bid at the UN by the European Union and the U.S. to condemn Assad and threaten sanctions, arguing he needed time to implement promised political changes

On Jan. 23, Syria rejected an Arab League proposal to form a national unity government within two months to implement a peaceful handover of power, describing it as a violation of its sovereignty.

Although Damascus allowed the mission to be extended for another month and the observers officially saying they can continue with their task, behind the scenes things are much less optimistic

And with deep divisions – both regionally and internationally – over what action to take to end the violence, hopes of ending the crisis seem to be slipping further and further out of reach.

Having waved goodbye to their Gulf State colleagues, some observers remain – but it’s small consolation.

“Syria didn’t close the doors on the Arab League and I think Syria will give anyone the chance to help Syrians but the last decision is in the hands of the Syrian people – not the Arab League and Security Council – through national dialogue and through reforms,” says Dr. Bassam Abu Abdullah.

• Gatilov: Western-Arab draft resolution on Syria unacceptable for Russia..Ryabkov: Russia rejects West’s unilateral sanctions approach
• President of French National Front: Western media broadcast false allegations against Syria

 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

‘Is there really a pro-Qaddafi uprising in Libya?’

FLC

‘The Wild West in the Sahara’
“… Contrary to many of the headlines, the battle in Bani Walid, which the pro-revolutionary forces now seem to have decided in their favor, was not part of a pro-Gaddafi uprising. Green flags did not, as was first reported, sprout from the rooftops. The issue was the arrest of war crimes suspects. Since the end of last year’s fighting, Bani Walid has become a refuge for the waifs and strays of the former Gaddafi administration who are on the war crimes lists of other cities. A pro-government unit in the town had begun to arrest them when on Monday their base was attacked by a local clan. Four soldiers were killed, the rest fled, and the suspects were set free.
Now the National Guard wants them back. “We want to go home, we all want to go home,” says National Guard fighter Osman El Hadi, himself from Beni Walid. “But first we need to finish this.”
This minor uprising, in short, is less significant in itself than for what it says about the disarray of the post-revolutionary administration in Tripoli. Right now, power on the national level is exercised by the National Transitional Council (NTC). But this latest crisis has revealed once again that the NTC is, at best, a bit player.
The real power in Libya remains dispersed among the country’s bewildering array of grassroots military formations. Most are grouped around town or city military councils; Tripoli is divided into 11 district militias. The last time anyone counted, Misrata had 172, ranging from ten-man outfits to the 500-strong Halbus Brigade, with a wartime strength of 17,000. That figure has since plummeted, with thousands returning to their jobs….”

Posted by G, M, Z, or B at 12:40 AM

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

God forgive him… I certainly can’t

by Paul Eisen

 River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

The Ziocons & ‘shitting the proverbial pants’

Via FLC

“…America is a country that has grown complacent in its assumptions about the Middle East and its politics, and too wedded to the idea of having an imperial role in the region (of which CENTCOM is the embodiment) and the world more generally. For several years I have advocated an American withdrawal from the Arab world (FLC believes that this is undergoing but ONLY in the Levant!) The Arab uprisings have made this all the more urgent, although it is a delicate, difficult, and potentially dangerous matter. But that’s a debate for another day. 

Let me focus now on a few pieces by people who have written very unwise things, and who are the other bigpart of the problem with American foreign policy in the region: those who primarily see US Middle East policy through the lens of Israel.  

Robert Satloff, a leading hack of the Israel lobby think tank WINEP, and Eric Trager have a piece in the WSJ you can read here. A few years ago Satloff was all into pressuring Egypt on democracy issues, but now has buyer’s remorse – confirming my long-held suspicion that people like him and Elliott Abrams (and many others) were only tactically interested in democracy promotion as a manner to wield greater influence over the Mubarak regime. Now that Islamists have won a majority in Egypt’s parliament, they are shitting their proverbial pants….”

Posted by G, M, Z, or B at 5:29 PM

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

The Global March on Jerusalem – A Call to Join

by Laura Stuart

31st of March 2012 is what is known as “Land Day“, a day significant in the very full diary of Palestinian suffering. It is a day which recalls when, in the name of security, Israel decided to steal even more Palestinian land, something which they have continued doing until the present day.

Martyrs of Land Day Memorial, Sakhnin

On Land Day, International Peace Activists will take part inThe Global March to Jerusalem and march towards Al Aqsa masjid in Occupied Jerusalem. They will be joined by humanitarians from around the globe, a host of mixed nationalities, religions and political persuasions all uniting to particpate in this historic event. Their aim is to highlight the illegal occupation and other Israeli injustices towards Palestinians.

After the two masajid in Mecca and Medina respectively, Al Aqsa masjid in Jerusalem is the third most important masjid to the world’s one and a half billion Muslims, . Despite Al Aqsa masjid being so important to Muslims, it is almost impossible to visit because of the Illegal Occupation by Israel. Palestinians who live in Israel or East Jerusalem are able to pray in Al Aqsa but others from the West Bank wishing to go and pray, are subject to age restrictions and military checkpoints.

Palestinians from Gaza would not get permission to travel there at all. Muslims from the rest of the world might be able to visit Al Aqsa as part of a tour of the Holy Land, however everyone is subject to the whims of the Israelis issuing visas.

Personally I would love to visit Al Aqsa but am highly unlikely to be issued a visa by the State of Israel due to a series of events I suffered as an unarmed civilian activist at the hands of the Occupation State. 

Having been kidnapped from the Mavi Marmara in International waters of the Mediterranean in May 2010 by pirates a.k.a. Israeli Occupation Special Forces, taken to Hebrew speaking Palestine (Ashdod) against my will at gunpoint then imprisoned in Beer Sheba prison for allegedly entering the State of Israel illegally and breaking immigration laws!

Yes, really ! You just couldn’t make that sort of lunacy up! I am now subject to a ten year ban from entering the State of Israel. My personal belongings which were stolen from me such as camera, mobile phone, cash etc have never been returned to me by the pirates, I don’t like to complain about my missing belongings too much since there are 8 widows and 29 orphans in Turkey who lost so much more.

It is alarming to follow the Meir Amit Institute reports about the “Global March to Jerusalem” and see their obvious attempt to portray the march as likely to become rowdy and violent. Given Israel’s tendency to respond to protests with violence, this is hopefully not a pretext for opening fire and murdering unarmed civilians.

This peaceful event is being seen by Israel as a threat to their legitimacy, and well they might because the publicity surrounding it will ultimately awaken more people in the world to the injustices that Israel perpretrates on Palestinians. But for some reason Israel is blind to the reality that it is its leaders and citizens such as the settlers, and their policies of ethnic cleansing, stealing land and apartheid that deligitimises the State in the eyes of the world.

Here below is the call from Palestinians to join the March

Join us as we intensify our struggle against forced exile and the system of Israeli apartheid on Land Day 2012.

We Palestinians have been ethnically cleansed and uprooted from our lands starting in the 1948 Nakba (Catastrophe) which resulted in the creation of the millions of refugees who are now living in the Diaspora. Nineteen years later, in 1967, Israel illegally annexed East-Jerusalem and the West Bank in a move which marked the Naksa (Setback), and subjected the remaining Palestinians to a brutal military occupation.

We are now in 2012, and we are still living in exile or under the Israeli apartheid regime, the illegal construction of colonial settlements is confiscating the remaining parts of Palestine, the Separation Wall divides and separates villages and towns, and Palestinians in Jerusalem are threatened of being driven out of their homes and lands for the mere purpose of the Judaization of this sacred city.

But we will not leave. We will stand and be firm. We will not permit thousands of years of our attachment to our land and our Holy City to be broken. We therefore invite and call upon all persons of courage and good will around the world to stand up and walk, with your fellow human beings, regardless of religion, of political affiliation – to stand up as responsible human beings and walk peacefully towards Jerusalem on the 30th of March, 2012.

We therefore ask all our brothers and sisters throughout the world to join Palestinians on Land Day, 30 March, 2011, in challenging the barriers, borders and procedures that separate Palestinians from Jerusalem and from their homes and lands in all of historic Palestine.

• Palestinian National and Islamic Organizations
• Al-Rowwad Cultural and Theatre Training Centre, www.alrowwad-acts.ps
• Al-Walaja Popular Resistance Committee
• The Alternative Information Center – AIC – www.alternativenews.org
• BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights: www.badil.org/
• Beit Ummar Popular Resistance Committee
• Bil’in Popular Resistance Committee www.bilin-village.org
• Friends of Freedom and Justice, Bil’in www.bilin-ffj.org
• Handala Center – www.handalla-center.org
• Holy Land Trust www.holylandtrust.org
• International Solidarity Movement: www.palsolidarity.org
• Nebi Saleh Popular Resistance Committee
• Ni’lin Popular Resistance Committee
• Palestinian Centre for Rapprochement between People www.PCR.PS
• Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign www.stopthewall.org
• Palestine Justice Network www.palestinejn.org
• Palestine Solidarity Project WWW.palestinesolidarityproject.org
• Popular Struggle Coordinating Committee www.popularstruggle.org/
• Siraj Center for Holy Land Studies, www.sirajcenter.org
• Youth Against Settlements (Hebron)
• Youth Activity Center – Aida Camp (www.key1948.org)
• abdm@hotmail.com

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Hamas Divided Over Its Presence in Syria

http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/hub.1326407570.html

(Photo: REUTERS – Asmaa Waguih)

If the advisory council does not nominate Meshal again, the favorite to win could be Moussa Abu Marzook (C), should the council opt for a leader outside of the occupied Palestinian territories.

By: Qasem Qasem

Published Friday, January 27, 2012

Hamas has evacuated most of its administrative personnel from Syria. The justification that Hamas officials gave for the evacuation was that there is no need for these administrators to remain in Syria during a period of political upheaval and that the uprising would have hindered their ability to carry out their work and limited their movement had they stayed.

Hamas has kept a staff of about 100 people in the political bureau, a fraction of the nearly 2000 that were there before.

Despite these measures, Hamas strongly denies that it will transfer its politburo from Syria to Egypt or Jordan, or that it has any desire to leave Syria.

However, everything they are doing suggests otherwise. It appears as if Hamas is preparing for the right moment for its administration to leave Syria.

The strongest indicator of this was the decision to move the families of the members of its politburo out of Damascus over the past months.

Head of the politburo, Khaled Meshal, has moved his family to Amman in Jordan. Meanwhile, his deputy Mousa Abu Marzook moved his family to Egypt.

Hamami from London Leave Damascus now

One movement official who did not wish to be identified stated that “Hamas does not want to leave Syria, but in the event that we are forced to leave Damascus, it must be at the lowest possible cost to us.”
As far as what this means, Hamas is quite simply “waiting for Syria to expel us,” according to the official.

The debate surrounding moving the political bureau arose with infighting among different wings of Hamas. Meshal’s moderate wing, which wants to move the political bureau, has been weakened by the “security solution” currently being pursued by the Syrian regime.

Meshal announced Hamas’s opposition to the Syrian regime’s security measures during a visit to Tehran in October of last year.

On the other hand, Meshal’s more hard-line deputy Abu Marzook’s stocks have risen. He supports moving the bureau out of Syria, and has also proposed that Hamas distance itself from Iran.

For the first time since its foundation, the conflict between Hamas’ different wings has become public. This is due to recent leaks from inside the organization that Meshal does not intend to run for his post again.

According to movement members, this news was leaked by “those close to Abu Marzook.” They add that the motivation for the leak was to prevent Meshal from later “going back on his word.”
Yet, Meshal’s announcement that he does not intend to run does not necessarily mean that he will not be a candidate.

According to one Hamas official, the organization’s advisory council “could decide to nominate him again, at which point Abu Walid [Meshal] will be forced to yield to the opinion of the council.”
If the advisory council does not nominate Meshal again, the favorite to win could be Abu Marzook, should the council opt for a leader outside of the occupied Palestinian territories. Alternatively, Ismail Haniyeh could be nominated, should the council prefer a candidate from within Palestine.

However, despite current tensions between Hamas and the regime in Syria, the movement has made some headway in Jordan.

Hamas supporters are awaiting the results of the meeting that will be held between King Abdullah II and Meshal next Sunday in Amman.

The meeting, which is being billed as a “reconciliation” meeting, will likely see the reopening of Hamas’s offices in the Jordanian capital, bringing the organization closer to its constituency in the West Bank.

The meeting, arranged nearly a year ago with the help of the Qataris, has been delayed several times by the Jordanian king due to media leaks.

Some Hamas members deny the possibility of the political bureau being transferred to Egypt, as the country is still experiencing turmoil of its own.

One Hamas member said, “Egyptian intelligence announced that it is unable to host Hamas’s political bureau in Cairo. But they will allow the movement to conduct meetings with international officials on Egyptian soil.”
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.

According to Syrian opposition circles in Cairo, Hamad bin Jassem, in a meeting with members of the Syrian National Council in the Egyptian capital, presented an analysis stressing that Hamas ended as the movement of armed resistance. Hamas exit from Damascus, which has become confirmed will put an end to hamas as a resistance movement.The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt will not be able to protect Hamas as an armed resistance movement because of the Camp David and Egyptian army presence and the large economic vulnerability in Egypt as well as the Egyptian society is not psychological ready for going to war on the border with Palestine, moreover the Jordan brothers can’t embrace Hamas because Jordan cannot bear this burden.

Zahhar: Shura Council will Choose Next Hamas Chief

No renewal to Mishaal: external pressures and internal differences

Hamas to leave Syria & Meshaal could step down

Rats desert a sinking ship, fools ride

“Is it a pre-condition to recognize Israel in order to govern?”

Brothers of America

Khalid Amayreh: “The Syrian regime must change, or it will be changed”

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Deir Yassin Remembered – The Film

Source

Deir Yassin Remembered

33:17–5 years ago

Early in the morning of April 9, 1948, commandos of the Irgun (headed by Menachem Begin) and the Stern Gang attacked Deir Yassin, a village with about 750 Palestinian residents. The village lay outside of the area to be assigned by the United Nations to the Jewish State; it had a peaceful reputation. But it was located on high ground in the corridor between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Deir Yassin was slated for occupation under Plan Dalet and the mainstream Jewish defense force, the Haganah, authorized the irregular terrorist forces of the Irgun and the Stern Gang to perform the takeover. In all over 100 men, women, and children were systematically murdered. Fifty-three orphaned children were literally dumped along the wall of the Old City, where they were found by Miss Hind Husseini and brought behind the American Colony Hotel to her home, which was to become the Dar El-Tifl El-Arabi orphanage.

Embed video

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=341600202419569830&hl=en&fs=true
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Glad not to be ….. in the PSC

by Roy Bard

The PSC AGM

Dr. Elias Akleh is a Palestinian. In 1948 and again in 1967 his family were displaced, and like millions of other Palestinians, he now finds himself living outside of his homeland. It is perhaps fortunate that he did not move to the UK and join the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, because after their AGM on Saturday, he would most likely by now be facing moves to expel him from the same campaign that seeks to liberate him.

I say this after reading his recent article The Brainwashing of the Jews, in which he makes a number of strong claims about the Judaic religion and the role it has played in shaping Jewish Identity. In exploring his theme, he draws entensively on the work of Jewish writers Nurit Peled-Elhanan and Lillian Rosengarten, and also cites Atzmon approvingly. But, it is the inclusion of the latter which I think would have necessitated the PSC Star chamber to be reconvened.

Also fortunate not to be members of the PSC are Richard Falk and Prof. Mearsheimer, both of whom not only endorsed Atzmon’s book The Wandering Who?, but went on to refuse to withdraw their endorsements when their ‘mistakes’ were pointed out to them. Tony Greenstein would surely have no compunction in denouncing them to the PSC as anti-semites.

The thought that, had they been members, the PSC might have taken action against a Palestinian and two influential figures in the Palestinian solidarity discourse because they dared to suggest that Jewish ideology is a subject that can and should be debated, is especially ironic when you consider how Ben Cohen bemoans the fact that Jewish Power has failed to damage Mearsheimer, despite even the intervention of the mighty Dersh.

The fact that a controversy did not erupt, that the endorsement of a Holocaust revisionist by a prominent professor at a major university did not lead to calls for his dismissal or resignation or even a chin-pulling symposium in the pages of the New York Times’s “Sunday Review,” represents an important shift in the privileges that anti-Semites and their sympathizers enjoy.

Later he claims:

The truth is that the rising fixation with Jewish power in our time has unwittingly revealed Jewish emasculation instead. Jews do not control the discourse; rather, the discourse controls them.

I think Cohen, in highlighting how this is a struggle for control of the discourse, is dead right. His angle is that as the victim of anti-semitism, Jews should be able to decide what anti-semitism is, -and that that decision should not be challenged. So naturally, he is troubled that an increasing number of Jewish voices are vocally expressing dissent and insisting on opening up the discourse, because, as is clear, there cannot be an easily accepted definition of anti-semitism, when there is disagreement within the group said to be the real victims..

As a Palestinian Dr. Akleh welcomes the fact that more Jewish voices are speaking out against the ideology which with they have been ‘brainwashed’. As a Jew, Cohen wants those voices stopped, and punished.

Now, which side has been taken by the PSC?

In both Cohen and Akleh there are ideas worth considering, ideas which examine the question of anti-Semitism from opposite ends of the spectrum, and I would urge people to read them for themselves. And, if you’re worried about the PSC exec finding out you’re reading Akleh, why not do it under the bed-covers with a flashlight, in the early hours?
You should be safe…… for now.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Let’s be Fair

Let’s be Fair

by Francis Clark-Lowes

My heart sinks when I hear that phrase, ‘let’s be fair.’

‘Let’s be fair, George Bush had no alternative but to smash Afghanistan and Iraq.’

‘Let’s be fair, what would you have done faced with that massive hostile gathering at Amritsar on 13th April 1919 or that dangerous looking civil-rights march in Londonderry on 30 January 1972 (40 years ago on Monday, by the way)?’

‘Let’s be fair, the Jews needed a safe haven, and so they had to organise a transfer.’

Nevertheless, let’s indeed be fair! I’m thinking particularly about what used to be called ‘the Jewish question’. Once Jews had been emancipated in most of Europe in the nineteenth century, there was a debate both among Jews themselves, and in the wider host societies within which they lived, about what their role should be, and even about whether or not they should remain a recognisable group.

Theodore Herzl, the founder of modern political Zionism, recognised the problems which arose from remaining distinct within a host society, and at one point favoured the conversion of the mass of Jews to Catholicism. Many Jews today would also like to throw off the last vestiges of their Jewishness. Whether they succeed or not remains unclear.

But is it reasonable to ask a people with a long history and a recognisable culture to suddenly forget their identity? Is it even practicable? Of course not. Even those, the majority, who have abandoned all but the last vestiges of their religion, still have an awareness of being Jewish, and nothing non-Jews do is likely to change that. However much our modern identities may have multiple components, the parts which we inherit through our parents are always likely to be prominent.

In his book, The Wandering Who? Gilad Atzmon very clearly indicates the dangers inherent in aspects of Jewish culture today. He sees Jewishness as having become an ideology, and I suggested in my appeal speech a week ago that this ideology is also unsinkable. Whichever way you try to criticise it you end up in the wrong. This is a very effective survival strategy in the short term. But is it so in the long term?

Jewish history has indeed been one of periodic suffering. But it has also been one in which Jews have very successfully negotiated with the holders of power in their host societies. The two are not unrelated. There has been a wave motion in the fortunes of Jews, sometimes good, sometimes bad, with the bad being at least partly a reaction to what happened in the good periods.

We are living in a ‘good’ period for Jews. You need go no further than Mearsheimer and Walt to recognise the degree to which Jews, collectively, have been successful in controlling Western foreign policy, for example. But Jews and non-Jews alike know that this situation could turn nasty. How long will non-Jews tolerate so much power in the hands of a tiny minority?

So, let’s be fair. In all humanity, we don’t want a repeat of past pogroms. How, then, should Jews and non-Jews alike work toward a solution not solely based on all of us becoming universalists (an unlikely scenario). This will require a modification of Jewish culture, and where necessary also of non-Jewish cultures, in such a way that they can live in harmony with one another.

The role of non-Jews and Jews will be to criticise Jewish culture when they dislike what they see (just as Jews have very often criticised non-Jewish cultures), and not to be deterred by cries of ‘anti-Semtism.’

The task is not an easy one. But sticking our heads in the sand and treating the whole subject as taboo will get us nowhere.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Can foreign gangsters bulldoze your home…

Can foreign gangsters bulldoze your home…

by Stuart Littlewood

…without warning and get away with it?

And then do the same to all your neighbours?

There can be few things more despicable than robbing a family of their home then destroying it in front of their eyes. But this is Israeli policy.

When the following news item arrived in my inbox I was more than usually interested. The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) took me to see Beit Arabiya, the much demolished and rebuilt Bedouin home, nearly six years ago. Of course, it has been bulldozed and rebuilt a few times since then.

I’m reproducing the whole thing so that you get the full flavour of Israel’s evil. And it’s from an impeccable Israeli source too.

You can also read it at here.

ICAHD Peace Center “Beit Arabiya” Demolished for the Fifth Time

24 January 2012

Israeli authorities demolished Beit Arabiya (“Arabiya’s House”) last night (Monday, January 23rd) for the fifth time, along with structures in the East Anata Bedouin compound. Beit Arabiya, Located in the West Bank town of Anata (Area C) just to the northeast of Jerusalem, is a living symbol of resistance to Occupation and the desire for justice and peace.

As its name suggests, Beit Arabiya is a home belonging to Arabiya Shawamreh, her husband Salim and their seven children, a Palestinian family whose home has been demolished four times by the Israeli authorities and rebuilt each time by ICAHD’s Palestinian, Israeli and international peace activists, before being demolished again last night.

At around 11p.m. Monday, a bulldozer accompanied by a contingent of heavily armed Israeli soldiers appeared on the Anata hills, to promptly demolish Beit Arabiya, along with residential and agricultural structures in the nearby Arab al-Jahalin Bedouin compound. 3 family homes were demolished along with numerous animal pans, and 20 people including young children were displaced, left exposed to the harsh desert environment. While standing in solidarity with Palestinians, ICAHD staff and activists were repeatedly threatened by Israeli soldieries. ICAHD Co-Director Itay Epshtain was beaten and sustained minor injuries.

Beit Arabiya was issued a demolition order by Israeli authorities back in 1994, following their failure to grant a building permit. It has since been demolished four times, to be rebuilt by ICAHD activists. Following a reissue of the demolition order last Thursday, came last night’s fifth demolition. ICAHD Director, Dr. Jeff Halper, standing astride the ruins, vowed to support Salim and Arabiya in rebuilding their home.

“We shall rebuild, we must rebuild forthwith, as an act of political defiance of the occupation and protracted oppression of Palestinians”

said Halper.
Beit Arabiya has become a symbol of resistance to the Judaization of the Occupied West Bank and Israeli demolition policy.

“ICAHD is as determined as always to rebuild the home, and endure in its struggle to bring about justice and peace” added Halper.

Salim and Arabiya, along with their neighbors and friends stood last night and watched as this tragedy unfold once again. Arabiya and Salim have dedicated their home as a center for peace in the memories of Rachel Corrie and Nuha Sweidan, two women (an American and a Palestinian) who died resisting home demolitions in Gaza. In the past decade ICAHD has hosted numerous visitors at Beit Arabiya, and based its annul rebuilding camp at the house, rebuilding 185 demolished Palestinian homes.
Only earlier this month, ICAHD extended an invitation to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing to visit Beit Arabiya during her country visit to the Occupied Palestinian Territory scheduled for later in the month. “It is our hope, that while we cannot extend the same hospitality to the Special Raporteur Raquel Rolnik will visit the ruins of Beit Arabiya, and report on the utter cruelty, and illegality of Israeli policies and practices, and that members of the international community will follow in her footsteps”. ” said ICAHD Co-Director Itay Epshtain.

For more information and coordination of visits to Beit Arabiya, kindly contact Itay Epshtain at itay@icahd.org or +972-54-2623306

Additional Information

House demolitions and forced evictions are among Israel’s most heinous practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). In 2011, a record year of displacement, a total of 622 Palestinian structures were demolished by Israeli authorities, of which 36 per cent (or 222) were family homes; the remainder were livelihood-related (including water storage and agricultural structures), resulting in 1,094 people displaced, almost double the number for 2010. The Jordan Valley sustained the largest number of demolitions (32 per cent of total structures demolished, 40 per cent of residential structures demolished, 37 per cent of people displaced), with 199 structures demolished and 401 people displaced.

Israel now controls 40 per cent of the West Bank through 149 settlements and 102 outposts, housing more than 500,000 Jewish Israelis, as well as through closed military zones and declared nature reserves. In addition, house demolitions, forced evictions, and land expropriation, exacerbated by settler violence and the economic effects of movement restrictions, have left Palestinian communities struggling to make a living. Palestinians live in constant fear of displacement and dispersion, while Israel secures its domination and control.

The demolition of Palestinian homes is politically motivated and strategically informed. The goal is to confine the 4 million residents of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza to small enclaves, thus effectively foreclosing any viable Palestinian state and ensuring Israeli control, and to allow for the expropriation of land, the ethnic displacement of Palestinians, and the Judaization of the Occupied West Bank.

The recent ICAHD report ‘The Judaization of Palestine: 2011 Displacement Trends’ provides a political analysis of the root causes and consequences of Israel’s house demolition policy, focusing on the demolition of Palestinian homes and other structures in the Occupied West Bank. Click here to read the report.

Back in 2006 I arranged to go on one of ICAHD’s tours of house demolition sites, a programme for journalists and students then run by one of Jeff Halper’s colleagues, another amiable American known to everyone as “JJ”. I wrote it up for my book, Radio Free Palestine, as follows:
The tour with JJ took us to Anata… If you thought Jenin was bad, you should see Anata. This is a blighted and doomed Palestinian township, not shell-blasted like Jenin but strangulated, poverty-stricken, earmarked for destruction and on its last legs. There were umpteen demolition orders on Palestinian homes, some newly built.

Not content with persecuting the Palestinians, the Israelis are driving the Bedouin out of the Negev desert.

“They are destroying our homes and stealing our land and trying to concentrate us in small reservations in order to take our land and give it to Jewish settlers. Some of these so-called unrecognized villages predated the state of Israel. I wonder who needs recognition from whom,”

said Talab al-Sani’e, a Bedouin and a member of Israel’s Knesset.

“Israel has created 140 Jewish towns and villages in the Negev. And now they want to destroy Bedouin villages.”

Israel stands accused of illegally confiscating more than 98 per cent of Bedouin land and committing “ugly acts of racism” against Bedouins. Israeli aircraft sprayed herbicides over large areas of crops belonging to Bedouin tribes in the Negev for over 10 years. This was stopped after Bedouin leaders and human rights activists petitioned the Israeli high court, citing the herbicides’ harmful effect on humans and animals. After the court ruling the Israeli Land Authority turned to using tractors to destroy the crops just before harvest time, according to Bedouin leaders. “They refuse to connect our villages with the national power grid, they refuse to connect us with the national water carrier, they refuse to allow us to open streets. Our children are denied schooling.”

Meeting and shaking hands with peace campaigner Jeff Halper, a professor of anthropology at Ben Gurion University and director of ICAHD, was for me a high point of my visit to the Holy Land. An American Jew, Jeff went to live in Israel in 1973 after attending rabbinical school. He had been a Vietnam war resister, and when he became an Israeli citizen he refused to bear arms during his military service and refused to serve in the occupied territories.

ICAHD works with other Israeli groups such as Bat Shalom, Rabbis for Human Rights, Taayush and Gush Shalom, and with Palestinian organizations. ICAHD resists the demolition of Palestinian homes, with Jeff himself frequently confronting the bulldozers and Israeli soldiers. He and ICAHD organize Palestinians, Israelis and internationals in rebuilding some of the demolished homes to underline their political resistance to the occupation. Their deep knowledge and research has successfully exposed the injustice.
He and his Palestinian counterpart, Ghassan Andoni, a physics professor at Birzeit University and co-founder of the Palestinian Centre for Rapprochement between People, were both nominated for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize. In response to the nomination Professor Halper said:
I am chilled by the prospect of my country imposing a new apartheid regime on another people, by the prospect of my people, the Jews (of all people), becoming the new Afrikaaners. I must also be concerned over the rising frustration and fury in the Arab and Muslim worlds, fuelled in large measure by American and European support for Israel’s occupation policies that both deny the Palestinians their right of self-determination and turn my country into a pariah state.
ICAHD, as Israelis, block the destructive bulldozers, chain themselves in the houses, conduct campaigns to mobilize opposition to the policy in Israel and abroad, turn to the courts and, when demolitions finally occur, join the Palestinians in rebuilding demolished homes to show solidarity and resistance.
We have come to see house demolitions as the very essence of the conflict between our two peoples: Israel’s exclusive claim to the entire country in the name of the Jewish people at the expense of another people living in the country … thisis what gives the policy of house demolitions its special significance.
When, as Israelis, we resist home demolitions and rebuild demolished homes as acts of civil disobedience, we are acknowledging the rights of both people to share the country. We are affirming our recognition that Palestinian claims carry equal authority to our own. And we are proclaiming loudly: We refuse to be enemies!
God bless Jeff and ICAHD. If in Jerusalem be sure to visit this remarkable man and his organization

What it’s like to be on the receiving end of an Israeli demolition order

Here’s a further note from that visit to ICAHD:

Palestinians do not have the luxury of home-delivered mail (even in East Jerusalem), so demolition orders are distributed haphazardly. A building inspector may knock on the door and hand the order to anyone who answers, including small children. More often the order is slipped into the doorframe or left under a stone near the house. Palestinians frequently complain that they never received the order before the bulldozers moved in, and thus were denied recourse to the courts. In Jerusalem a favourite practice is to “deliver” an order at night by placing it somewhere near the targeted home, then arrive early in the morning with the Caterpillar.

America and the rest of the West should understand clearly why Caterpillar has become the hated symbol of dispossession, ethnic cleansing and oppression, and has been the target of disinvestment campaigns.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East

Friday, January 27, 2012 at 8:47AM Gilad Atzmon

In May 2010, all 189 signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – including Iran – tacitly agreed to a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East and called for a conference in 2012 in Finland. But Israel has refused to support a nuclear weapons-free zone for the region, reluctant to give up its own. Israel also is not a signatory to the NPT. These facts have arguably destabilized the region, leaving open the possibility of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East

Antiwar.com reported today that former Saudi intelligence chief has called for a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East. Prince Turki Al Faisal urged the five permanent U.N. Security Council members to guarantee a nuclear security umbrella for Mideast countries that agree to a nuclear weapons-free zone and impose sanctions on countries that develop or maintain nuclear weapons.
Though it is clear that an Iranian nuclear weapons program would certainly be a concern to Saudi Arabia, it also must be mentioned that the opinion of the U.S. intelligence community, the Obama administration, and the latest IAEA report is that Iran’s enrichment is so far civilian in nature.
It seems as if Israel and its relentless lobbies are the biggest threat to world peace.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Turkey and Its Neighbours

“Turkey spent years repairing relations with neighbors under the banners of ….“zero problems” ….however, under the impact of the so-called “Arab spring”, that policy was abandoned virtually overnight. It has been replaced by ….support for an armed group seeking the overthrow of a government with which Turkey had friendly relations until very recently”.

Yusuf Fernandez

The relations between Turkey and its neighbours have entered an uncertain future. When Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his party, the AKP, came to power in Turkey, they promoted a “zero problems with the neighbours” policy. However, Turkey´s tensions with these countries appear to have effectively nullified that doctrine.

Actually, Turkey finds itself in a international precarious situation. Firstly, its interests are clearly ignored by Europeans, who have put the country´s bid for membership in the European Union on indefinite hold. The crisis with Cyprus, an EU member, is getting worse. Ankara has recently threatened military action in response to this country´s oil exploration activities in a disputed maritime area. In a recent meeting with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in New York, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu was told that the United States supported Cyprus´ right to explore in the area, which is led by an American company. In January, France passed a law against the so-called “armenian genocide” and Turkey´s protests were treated with disdain.

Ankara always claimed that it had alternatives if the EU closed its doors for Turkey. It was assuming a predominant role among the Muslim nations and using its political and economic power to become a conflict mediator in the region. However, this role could become impossible if Turkey continues to alienate its neighbours. Currently, the deterioration of relations with Syria, Iraq, Russia and Iran appears to be more or less serious and could have far-reaching consequences.
When Erdogan became PM in 2004, Turkey started to court its neighbours, especially Iran, Syria and Iraq. Ankara reconciled with Damascus after decades of mistrust due to the strategic alliance of Turkey with Israel.

The Syrians then became the neighbours with whom the Turks developed their closest ties. Their armed forces conducted joint maneuvers, while their foreign and defense ministers set up a “strategic cooperation council.” Both countries signed economic agreements worth billions of dollars. According to the newspaper Hürriyet, Turkey had never cooperated so closely with any other country.

However, the romance did not last. After the unrest in Syria broke out, Turkey embraced the opposition, gave up on Assad´s regime and announced sanctions against its old ally. Later, it started to openly promote a regime change in Damascus and hosted Syrian political and armed opposition groups. It allied itself with Syria´s main Arab enemies, especially the Arab Gulf countries. This policy meant the official “denouement of the Erdogan/Davutoglu investment in Bashar al-Assad” and thus it was the “end of what has been billed as Turkey’s transformative diplomacy,” wrote Steven A Cook in The Atlantic.

“For the first time in the life of the Turkish republic, a Turkish government has adopted a policy of open, unprovoked confrontation with a neighboring country”, wrote Ankara-based writer Jeremy Salt.

“Turkey spent years repairing relations with neighbors under the banners of soft power, strength in depth and “zero problems”. At every level, the outcome was very positive. Months ago, however, under the impact of the so-called “Arab spring”, that policy was abandoned virtually overnight. It has been replaced by threats, belligerence and support for an armed group seeking the overthrow of a government with which Turkey had friendly relations until very recently”. While Turkey once threatened to go to war unless Syria expelled Abdullah Ocalan, leader of the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK), it “is now supporting a man, Riad al Assad, whose “Free Syrian Army” is doing exactly the same across the Syrian border”, he added.

There are different reasons for the deterioration of links with Damascus alongside with the “altruistic” goal of “helping Syrian people”. Syria´s strong axis with Iran under Assad’s leadership makes it difficult for Turkey to play a meaningful role in the region. Ankara also sees Syria as a rival that competes for influence in Iraq. Syria´s influence over Palestinian and Lebanese parties and organizations, including Hamas and Hezbollah, also limits Turkey´s capacity to become a decisive actor in Palestine and Lebanon.

Although some media has spoken of a possible Turkish military intervention in Syria, there are some factors preventing Turkey from taking such a step.

Firstly, Turkey understands the importance of avoiding a miscalculation over Syria. If there was chaos in Syria, it would be Turkey that most suffers the consequences.

Secondly, Russia and China made it clear in their joint declaration issued in Moscow after the recent visit by President Hu Jintao that they will not allow the West to repeat the Libyan scenario in Syria. Russian President Dmitri Medvedev has said that it will use veto if the Western countries press for a resolution on Syria at the UN Security Council. “What I will not support is a resolution similar to 1973 on Libya, because I am convinced that a good resolution has been turned into a piece of paper to cover a senseless military operation,” Medvedev said.

Ankara has worked hard in last years to develop its relations with Moscow and shares important economic and energy interests with this country. Turkey has also increased its energy links with Iran and both countries exchange human and technical intelligence on the Kurdish armed organizations operating along their respective frontiers, diplomatic sources told the Hürriyet Daily News. On the whole, Russia and Iran provide 70% of Turkey´s energy imports.

However, Turkey´s embrace of the bid by NATO to station an anti-missile radar on its territory has already angered both countries, which have also become increasing suspicious of the new Turkish policy towards Syria. In this way, Turkey is not clearly interested in further antagonizing Russia and Iran by starting a military adventure in Syria.

Problems with Iraq

After the serious deterioration of his relations with the Syrian leadership, Erdogan has started another verbal war with his Iraqi counterpart, Nouri al Maliki.

Turkey has its own agenda on Iraq, which is widely determinated by the Kurdish issue. Ankara´s main focus is the prevention of an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq, the elimination of attacks on its territory by PKK fighters across the border and the protection of the Turkmen minority that resides mainly in Mosul and Kirkuk. To achieve this goal, Turkey does not need too much from Baghdad. Only its aquiescence when it invades northern Iraq to attack PKK bases.

Turkey also wants to increase its leverage over this country. But it cannot influence the Shiite forces and parties that control the Iraqi politics now. This is why the Turkish government worked behind the scenes to help build the Al Iraqiya coalition, which was supported by ex Baathists, Sunni secular nationalists and Turkmen. Turkish support for the coalition prompted protests from the leaders of Shiite and Kurdish organizations, which sent messages of discontent to Ankara.

When the election result was known the Turkish government was taken by surprise. Although Al Iraqiya came first, it did not gain enough seats to form a government. Therefore, Ankara failed to turn their support into a political triumph. Even after the election, Ankara kept on ignoring the Shiite groups and Kurds and instead insisted on strengthening its ties with Al Iraqiya. Finally, the Kurds and Shiites parties sat around a table and found common ground to set up an executive.

According to Cengiz Candar, a prominent Turkish expert on Middle East affairs, Ankara also wanted a Sunni president, especially Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, instead of Kurdish Jalal Talabani. However, both Talabani and the other Iraqi Kurdish leader, Massoud Barzani, supported the first one´s bid for presidency and Turkish plans failed.

At a point, Erdogan seemed to realize that if Turkey wanted to expand its influence in Iraq, then it needed to reach out to Shiites and Kurds. This is perhaps why Erdogan became the first Turkish PM who visited Najaf, the religious center of the Shiites in Iraq, and Irbil, capital of the Kurdish autonomous region. However, he was unable to overcome widespread suspicion towards Turkey´s intentions.

The relations between Turkey and Iraq reached another lower point when Erdogan publicly supported Iraqi Hashemi, who has been accused of having links with terrorist groups by the Iraqi authorities. On December 19, 2011, an investigative committee within Iraq´s Interior Ministry issued an arrest warrant for Hashemi after three of his bodyguards made confessions of taking orders from him to carry out the terrorist attacks. Hashemi later fled to the Kurdistan region.

On January19, Erdogan warned Maliki that Ankara would not remain silent if he promoted a sectarian conflict in his country. Maliki´s office responded with a statement again criticizing Turkey´s “interference” in Iraq’s affairs. “This is not acceptable in the dealings between officials of different states and especially from heads of state,” Maliki´s office said. “Erdogan has to be more careful in handling the usual protocols in international relations.”

In a posterior interview with al-Hurra television in January, Maliki said: “Turkey is unfortunately playing a role which may lead to disaster and civil war in the region.”

The tension with Iraq could have serious economic consequences for Turkey, which has already lost the Syrian market. It is noteworthy to point out that Iraq is now Turkey´s second biggest export market after Germany, with trade volume between the two reaching nearly 12 billion dollars in 2011. In the political field, the conflict is likely to further diminish Ankara´s influence over its neighbour.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

The big lie of Iran ‘two-tracks policy!’

Via FLC

Week after Israel’s Visit, Dempsey: Iran War Deeply Destabilizing

“… There is a common conception of Western policy as based on a two-pronged, carrot and stick approach: one a diplomatic track and the other a military threat….But by all appearances, the Western approach is solely designed to achieve Iranian capitulation to Western demands that it dismantle its nuclear research program…. … … 

So there is not a two-track policy regarding Iran. There is instead a one-track policy with two facets. On the one hand, there is a program of sanctions and covert war designed to intimidate and bloody Iran into capitulation. But if that doesn’t work (and it surely cannot), there is a military option designed to destroy Iran’s nuclear program. It’s no surprise, then, that the Iranians see their enemies closing in on them like a vise. An enemy who believes he has no options left is very dangerous. He is likely to lash out in unforeseen ways. Such desperation is precisely what could fuel not just a bilateral military conflict, but a full-scale regional war.
There is another misconception about Western policy. The liberals among us talk about a “military strike” as an option of last resort. The more clear-eyed, like the Brookings Institution’s Bruce Riedel, talk of a potential war against Iran. Neither is precisely right. As Israeli journalists have pointed out, there already is a war under way against Iran. It is bought and paid for by a $400 million allocation by the Bush administration in 2007. It has funded all the tools in the Mossad arsenal that were used to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program and foment general unrest inside the country… 

Though the cable doesn’t mention the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), the Mossad clearly views it as a potent force with an extensive internal network within the country, whose muscle could be exploited to further Israeli interests. 

Mark Perry recently published an expose of one particular Mossad project, a false flag operation in which it recruited the leader of Jundallah, a Sunni terrorist group operating in Iran, by posing as NATO and CIA agents. When the Bush administration discovered the nature of the program, it was furious. But ultimately it decided it had other fish to fry and would not make a major stink about the danger the duplicitous operation posed to U.S. agents in the region. 

Such Israeli tactics suggest that Israel pursues its own interests with little or no regard for how its behavior will impact friend or foe. For example, it utilizes the MEK as a partner in many of its terror operations inside Iran, even though U.S. State Department officially designates the MEK as a terror group.
This, of course, doesn’t stop the MEK and its well-paid domestic allies in the United States from pursuing an aggressive campaign to delist it as a terror group. Millions of dollars have been spent to further this goal, including enlisting prominent figures on both the Democratic and Republican sides to shill for delisting. The MEK appears to believe that terrorist activities in which it may be engaged inside Iran will not have an impact on its delisting by the United States. This is all the more reason for journalists in Israel and outside to make known its cooperation with the Mossad, so that the U.S. government can make an informed judgment about whether or not the MEK has renounced terrorism as it claims. 

Some analysts have called this a black ops campaign or covert war. Whatever we call it, it is war by another means. If the United States is serious about seeking a diplomatic solution with Iran, then why would it both encourage and fund such a powerful campaign of terror inside Iran?… … 

After following Iranian-Western relations for years, I believe the diplomatic track is a mirage and that the sanctions regime, which the West has pursued without success for 30 years, will not gain Iran’s capitulation. That leaves only two options: war, or Western impotence in the face of Iran’s implacable determination to pursue a nuclear option. Either option is bad, but the first is far worse than the second. 

The fallout from a war with Iran has been widely discussed…….
Since the United States doesn’t appear prepared for a real negotiation with Iran regarding its nuclear program, there is only one real approach short of war: containment. The United States adopted this approach during the Cold War against the Soviet Union. Though it was never optimal, considering the dysfunction in the relationship between the superpowers, containment worked reasonably well until the Soviet collapse in 1989. 

As former Defense Department Undersecretary Colin Kahl argues in his latest Foreign Affairs article, the United States already has the assets in place in the region to pursue a policy of containment … Containment still isn’t an optimal approach, but it’s the least bad one considering the current dysfunction characterizing relations between Iran and the West. In the future, Iran may turn to a reformist, more democratic government that might approach these issues differently. Or the climate in the West may change so that it would be willing to seriously engage with Iran on a similar basis to the Khatami 2003 proposals. But given the almost lunatic tone of the Republican presidential debates concerning Iran, and the fact that Barack Obama appears convinced that he must maintain impeccable national security credentials to protect his right flank, the United States is unlikely to adopt a more reasonable, pragmatic approach to Iran.
Under the circumstances, containment is the only remaining option that doesn’t lead to regional war, stalemate, and deeper dysfunction.”

Posted by G, M, Z, or B at 5:22 PM

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

"The buzz of victory & the agony of defeat!"

Via FLC

Hariri took off his jacket and his tie, rolled up his shirt sleeves and spoke to his supporters in Lebanese Arabic. Feb 14, 2011 He confirmed via Twitter on January 14 that he will be returning to Lebanon soon.

Former PM Saad Hariri broke his left leg while skiing in the French Alps, said his press office in a statement on Saturday.

Posted by G, M, Z, or B at 10:57 AM

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Independent Libyan Fact-Finding Mission

http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/hub.1326407570.html
by Stephen Lendman

A joint report was released by the Arab Organization for Human Rights (AOHR), Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), and International Legal Assistance Consortium (ILAC).
Their mission investigated alleged widespread international law violations since mid-February 2011. Its mandate included investigating those committed by:

• the former government;
• NATO; and
• insurgents.

It also sought to identify human rights issues, requiring Lybian and international attention.
Investigators included “leading international jurists and lawyers with expertise in international human rights law, international humanitarian law, international criminal law, transitional justice, and the development of legal systems in post-conflict environments.”

Information obtained from witnesses, victims, and other parties were kept confidential unless already revealed and available.

Investigations weren’t meant to be comprehensive. Rather, the mission tried “to convey the considered observations of its members, in order to facilitate, and prompt, the work of other bodies and authorities.”

Investigators included:

1. Raji Sourani: PCHR Director, Arab Organization for Human Rights President (AOHR), International Federation for Human Rights Vice President, Executive Committee of the International Committee of Jurists member, as well as other credentials.
2. Amin Mekki Medani: Sudanese lawyer and former AOHR President. He also held various UN posts.
3. Mohsen Awad: former AOHR Secretary-General and Egyptian Human Rights Council member.
4. Amina Bouayach: Moroccan Organization for Human Rights President and International Federation for Human Rights Vice President.
5. Agneta Johansson: International Legal Assistance Consortium (ILAC) Deputy Director.
6. William Meyer: ILAC Chairman and former CEELI Prague Institute Executive Director.
7. Daragh Murray: Republic of Ireland IRCHSS Scholar and head of PCHR’s International Unit.
8. Hany Abu Nahla: head of PCHR’s Translation Unit.

From November 15 – 22, investigations and interviews were conducted in Western Libya alone, in and around Tripoli, Zawiya, Sibrata, Khoms, Zliten, Misrata, Tawergha, and Sirte. Significantly, Benghazi was omitted, an area plagued by insurgent crimes.

Findings revealed “significant” international law violations. However, imposed constraints prevented investigators from reaching “definitive legal conclusions regarding individual incidents.” Nonetheless, they believe crimes of war and against humanity were committed.

Evidence suggests NATO classified civilian sites as military ones for attacks, including homes, schools, colleges, food distribution centers, hospitals, mosques, and others. In addition, civilians were targeted, notably in Sirte.

In fact, one incident there killed 47 or more non-combatants. This and other incidents raise “significant questions,” requiring further inquiry and disclosure.

Insurgents also violated international law, including civilian killings; torture and other abuses; wrongful detentions; mistreatment of foreign workers, and forced “displacement of suspected enemies of the Revolution.”

Observations about Gaddafi’s Governance

Unfortunately, investigators used dubious sources, calling his authority “one man rule.” They include the International Criminal Court (ICC) and International Crisis Group (ICG). Neither functions independently.

The ICC notoriously serves Western interests. As a result, it absolves or ignores their crimes while targeting their enemies like Gaddafi.

Former World Bank vice president Mark Malloch Brown and former US diplomat Morton Abramowitz co-founded the ICG. Now headed by former US diplomat Thomas Pickering and former International Criminal Tribunals chief prosecutor for Yugoslavia and Rwanda Louise Arbour, it functions the same way.

Its Executive Committee and advisors include former US and Western officials, former NATO commander Wesley Clark, and corporate figures like George Soros. They, in turn, reframed responsibility to protect authority in Libya to lawlessly intervene belligerently to establish neo-colonial rule. In fact, UN Charter provisions explicitly prohibit military force for humanitarian interventions.
Investigators also mischaracterized Jamahiriya governance, calling it “an elaborate facade” to hide Gaddafi’s sole authority. Quoting the ICG, they described it as “a highly complex formal ruling system containing a plethora of congresses and committees, often with overlapping powers, that have contributed to a sense of orchestrated and perpetual chaos.”

In addition by calling himself “Brother Leader,” Gaddafi “avoid(ed) accountability.”

They quoted the ICC saying “the Libyan State apparatus of power – including political, administrative, military and security branches – consists of a complex set of units and individuals, all of which are ultimately subject to the orders and control of” Gaddafi.

They ignored Washington’s longstanding regime change policy. As a result, an externally generated insurgency followed. In addition, the National Transitional Council (NTC) was illegitimately established with interim puppet authority for Western interests. Libyans are entirely shut out.
Nonetheless, investigators called it “internationally recognized as the Government of Libya….to oversee the transition to representative democracy.”

In fact, Washington, NATO partners, and complicit regional states don’t tolerate democracy or international law. Ignoring that denies reality.

Moreover, investigators claim “pre-revolutionary Libya (was) characterized by a climate of fear, in which individuals were afraid to speak their mind, where opposition – real or perceived – was ruthlessly crushed, and where security forces committed apparently widespread and systematic abuses with total impunity.”

Sadly, the facts belie this description. Most Libyans supported Gaddafi and still do. During NATO’s intervention, overwhelming numbers rallied openly. On July 1, 2011, 95% of Tripoli’s population (over a million strong) expressed support in Green Square.

Fear restrains them now. Doing so risks imprisonment, torture, and/or death by summary execution.
Libya’s social state was also ignored, including under Gaddafi’s 1999 Decision No. 111. It assured all Libyans free healthcare, education, electricity, water, training, rehabilitation, housing assistance, disability and old-age benefits, interest-free state loans, as well as generous subsidies to study abroad, buy a new car, help couples when they marry, practically free gasoline, and more.

Literacy under Gaddafi rose from 20 – 80%. Libya’s hospitals and private clinics were some of the region’s best. Now they’re in shambles.

Before war began, Libyans had Africa’s highest standard of living. Gaddafi’s Green Book said:
“The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by others.” It also covered other social policies, saying:

• “Women, like men, are human beings.
• ….(A)ll individuals have a natural right to self-expression by any means….;
• In a socialist society no person may own a private means of transportation for the purpose of renting to others, because this represents controlling the needs of others.
• The democratic system is a cohesive structure whose foundation stones are firmly laid above the other (through People’s Conferences and Committees). There is absolutely no conception of democratic society other than this.
• No representation of the people – representation is a falsehood. The existence of parliaments underlies the absence of the people, for democracy can only exist with the presence of the people and not in the presence of representatives of the people.”

Green Book ideology rejects Western-style democracy and predatory capitalism, especially neoliberal exploitation. It’s one of many reasons why Gaddafi was ousted.

His impressive social benefits also included free land, equipment, livestock and seeds for agriculture to foster self-sufficient food production. In addition, all basic food items were subsidized and sold through a network of “people’s shops.”

Moreover, since the 1960s, women could vote and participate politically. They could also own and sell property independently of their husbands. Under the December 1969 Constitutional Proclamation Clause 5, they had equal status with men, including for education and employment, even though men played leading roles in society.

Until Washington and rogue NATO partners blocked its approval, the UN Human Rights Council praised Gaddafi in its January 2011 “Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Libya Arab Jamahiriya.”

It said his government protected “not only political rights, but also economic, educational, social and cultural rights.” It also lauded his treatment of religious minorities, and “human rights training” of its security forces.

Throughout most of 2011, NATO’s killing machine destroyed 42 years of achievements. All Libyans benefitted. Why else did Gaddafi have overwhelming support?

His vision marked him for removal. It was just a matter of when, even though he cooperated with Western powers post-9/11 on matters of intelligence and terrorism.

Until vilified and targeted, he was welcomed in Western capitals. In 2003, he came in from the cold, became a valued Western ally, and had meetings and discussions with top officials like UK Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi, US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, and others.

He also participated in the 2009 G-8 Summit in L’Aquila, Italy as Chairman of the African Union. At the time, he met and shook hands with Obama.

Moreover, ABC News interviewed him live, and on January 21, 2009, The New York Times published his op-ed headlined, “The One-State Solution” to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. He called “living under one roof….the only option for a lasting peace.”

On May 16, 2006, Washington restored full diplomatic relations. Libya was removed from its state sponsors of terrorism list. At the time, Rice called the move:
“tangible results that flow from the historic decisions taken by Libya’s leadership in 2003 to renounce terrorism and to abandon its weapons of mass destruction programs….Libya is an important model as nations around the world press for changes in behavior by the Iranian and North Korean regimes.”

She also praised Gaddafi’s “excellent cooperation” in fighting terrorism. Moreover, he opened Libya’s markets to Western interests by arranging deals with Big Oil giants BP, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Occidental, France’s Total, Italy’s Eni Gas and others. By all appearances, he joined the club, so why turn on him?

Though on board in some ways, he very much wasn’t on others. He supported Palestinian rights. As a result, he opposed Israel’s occupation and Gaza’s siege.

Earlier he backed South Africa’s anti-apartheid struggles, as well as others in Northern Ireland, Spain, and elsewhere.

He had to die, but Why??

He opted out of AFRICOM’s imperial regional plan. He wanted Libyans to control their own resources and use revenues domestically for all Libyans. His Central Bank of Libya was state owned. It created its own money interest-free for economic growth, not speculation and wealth for predatory bankers.

He promoted pan-African unity, an idea anathema to Washington and Western powers. He advocated a new “Gold Standard,” replacing dollars with gold dinars, and hoped other African and Muslim states would adopt the idea. That alone got him targeted for removal.

He had nothing to do with downing Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. Neither did Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi. Scottish judges knew he was innocent but were pressured to convict.
Gaddafi never admitted fault. He took responsibility solely to have international sanctions removed. To this day, he and al-Megrahi stand falsely accused. Likely CIA /MI6/and/or Mossad involvement is never mentioned.

A Final Comment

Libyan Investigators have legitimate credentials as human rights supporters. Organizations like PCHR do extraordinary work. They deserve praise, encouragement and help.
Their report highlighted international crimes, need for more investigation, and prosecutions for those responsible.

It expressed concern for ongoing abuses in detention, mistreatment of foreign workers, and forced displacements of suspected Gaddafi loyalists. It called for measures to stop ongoing crimes.
Nonetheless, it wrongfully said “Libya is emerging from 42 years of authoritarian rule and governance characterized by injustice, the denial of fundamental human rights, and impunity.”

Libya’s now repressively occupied. A climate of fear prevails. Insurgent killers threaten Gaddafi supporters. Silence best protects them. Nonetheless, Libyans revealed crimes committed by NATO and rebel rat forces.

However, others condemning Gaddafi appear suspect. Indeed, he had enemies, but most Libyans supported him with good reason. As a result, the report tragically falls short. It includes NATO and insurgent crimes but mischaracterizes Gaddafi’s rule.

Hopefully, another mission will follow in less volatile times. Violence still rages. Little gets reported. Western media scoundrels entirely suppress it. Libyans deserve better. Their nation was peaceful until NATO showed up. Now it’s destroyed and all previously enjoyed rights lost.
Mission team members must acknowledge it and point fingers where they belong.

NOTE:

In mid-January, 12,000 US troops were positioned in Malta ahead of occupying Libya. On January 18, Libya SOS said hundreds of American soldiers already arrived. Libya’s Western-appointed foreign minister said 6,000 came to Tripoli’s Mitiga International Airport.
Straightaway, they set up “mobile camps and equipment around oil fields and refineries.” In other words, they’re protecting Western interests, principally oil. Libyans lost their rightful resources and living standard they afforded.

“Tunis Focus” reports that US forces are in Brega, Ras Lanouf, Sirte, and Tripoli’s Mitiga International Airport. Moreover, US and NATO helicopters, warplanes, and drones now patrol Libyan airspace. They’re surveilling and attacking suspicious targets.
Ahead lies occupation, neo-colonization, pillaging, exploitation, violence and repression. It persists wherever America shows up. So does overwhelming suffering and human misery. Libyans experienced it for months. Much more lies ahead.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Laura Stuart: PSC, Racism and the ‘Two State Solution’

Wednesday, January 25, 2012 at 11:31AM Gilad Atzmon

www.deliberation.info/

Things can only get worse for the PSC. So far, the PSC leadership have faced just the thin end of a derailment campaign which is sure to intensify now they have shown such willingness to bow to Jewish power tactics. Now that PSC has started to censor its own members on such issues as holocaust revisionism and anti-Semitism, the attacks on an already weakened P.S.C. can only increase. My friends who are still members tell me that lately in regional meetings, all too many hours have been spent discussing these topics and despite hours of what should have been active campaigning time spent on these distractions, as predicted by many it has resulted only with the Zionists emboldened to make even more demands.

Outside, Harry’s Place, The Jewish Chronicle and Anthony Cooper hover and squawk over the PSC’s demise like vultures over a corpse, while within, Tony Greenstein and Naomi Wimbourne- Idrissi pass motions that serve only to hasten PSC’s decomposition. How two self-identifying political Jews, both operating in racially-orientated Jewish political groups (Does J.B.I.G. or J.F.J.F.P. have any Palestinian members or indeed any members who are non-Jews?), can lead a discourse on racism is a question we should all be asking.

It is no coincidence that these attempts to delegitimise PSC should occur after the Freedom Flotilla (Mavi Marmara) which hit the mainstream media highlighting the injustice of the siege of Gaza and proving to the world that Israel Occupation Forces can and will kill with complete impunity. No other action since then has had such a huge impact. However, when the Reut Institute, an Israeli Intelligence Agency in August 2010, wrote its report on the Flotilla, it revealed that Israel had woken up to the fact that Muslims, Christians, Jews, leftists and atheists were able to work together in harmony to organise this huge initiative. So, it was decided that, after the flotilla, the main hasbara aim was to “delegitimize the delegitimizers “. PSC came late to support of the Freedom Flotilla, and was represented by only one delegate Sarah Colbourne who found a place on the Mavi Marmara only at the very last minute. Till then, PSC had not supported or even mentioned the mission.
Here is a quote from the Reut Institute Report:-

However it was the ability of its organizers to mobilize leading figures among the liberal progressive elite in the West that bolstered the Gaza Flotilla and turned it into a global and politically explosive event. The big-tent approach of ‘everyone is invited’ resulted in the participation of both extreme Islamists and European intellectuals; Jews, Christians, and Muslims; Arab citizens of Israel; and others. In all likelihood, the vast majority of those present did not aim to promote the delegitimization of the State of Israel.”

So, according to Israeli intelligence agency The Reut Institute, not all those on board the flotilla were against the existence of the Jewish State. Unbelievably, PSC’s Hugh Lanning confirms this. In the Morning Star he states that the PSC fully supports the “Two-State Solution”

But PSC speaker Hugh Lanning hit back. He stressed the need for two states based on the 1967 borders – a demand recently backed by US President Barack Obama but consistently rejected by Israel. “At the moment there is only one state – Israel,” he said. “A two-state solution objectively means the creation of a free, independent Palestinian state which does not exist right now.”

So there we have it in black and white; PSC supports the “Two State Solution” and at the same time proclaims itself as an organisation which is ‘anti-racist’.

The State of Israel wants to be “The Jewish State” and, as I write, is busily engaged in passing even more apartheid laws to disadvantage non-Jews. Many Israelis state openly their desire for 20% of their population who are Palestinian Arabs to be transferred into what would be the new State of Palestine thus making Israel a Jewish state pure and cleansed of Arabs. “Rein Juedischer Staat” in the equivalent Nazi terminology. So, to accept the Two-State Solution with its implicit renunciation of the right of return is, in my opinion, as full a complicity in racist ethnic cleansing as it is possible to be. Should not the truly non racist vision of One Democratic State, where the claimed Semites, the Jews live side by side in harmony with the real Semites, the Palestinians? So much for the ‘anti-racist’ PSC.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Islamists in power: Old and new experiences. The Examination is Palestine

by Tallal Salman
Translation, Pics, links by Alex

In its long history the image of political Islam across the Arab world was never bright image accusations and suspicions chased its ideology and practice.

Muslim Brotherhood is accused in its patriotism sometimes, by talking about its link to colonial Western circles, starting with the British and now with the USA and the position towards the Israeli occupation of Palestine, especially as political Islam progressing towards more power from an Arab country wanted to reassure Israelis, via Washington, its commitment to peace treaty with the Jewish State despite Israeli continuing efforts to raze Palestine from the map and perhaps from memory.

It was among the causes of distortion in the image of the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic fundamentalists, including Salafis, is its early clash with revolution led by Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt, which gradually spread to various political parties, Arab nationalism, as well as Marxist political movements and national movements rejecting the inclusion of religious emblem, in a region having multiple identities and religious sectarianism, considering Islamists a tool lifting an Islamic banner to divide the masses and prevents its unity in the face of Western colonialism .

Regardless of right and wrong in these confrontations and wars and its fire extinguished over half a century or more, generations grew on the fear of Islamic organizations, especially with regimes using the Islamic slogan considering Nationalism and «Arabism» even «national» a work of the devil….With promotion for Caliph the only way to unite the House of faith!

It is fair to say that fighting Communism had occupied the Islamists attention more than the Israeli occupation of Palestine and its extension to the territory of other Arab countries including Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan

There is more than one experience to govern in the name of Islam, most notably at the moment-the Iranian regime and the regime in Turkey, each providing a different experience. it is naive to attribute the Turkish experience to the Arab Edition of Muslim Brotherhood, and to attribute the Iranian experience to Shiite Imamiyah theory which was never practiced in Islamic History.

For example, Turkey, now led by brothers, despite the interlocutory vessel Marmara crisis with the Zionist entity, did not alter the fundamentals of its relationship both with the West in General, mainly USA and NATO, and with the Israeli entity. In the latest news about this Maramara incident that was plunged by the Turkish Government, media, and then suddenly withdrawn, the Prosecutor, upon from the Government to freeze all legal proceedings against military and political forums in Israel involved in the attack on the ship Marmara.

According to news, published by the Yediot Aharonot newspaper Ankara had waived its claim against Israel, and even its request for an apology for the described crime the whole world has seen.

Turkey, of course, has the appropriate policy for its national interests, but it is essential that the Arabs deal with this policy in the light of their national interests including certainly the question of Palestine.

Muslim Brotherhood’s Turkey… approved recently, what was rejected by many European countries, a US demand to deploy anti-missile missile network in its territory, it is self-evident that this network raises concern Iran and Iraq and Syria, in addition to Russia….

Obviously, this commitment to the security of the West does not correspond exactly to the Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet davutoğlu speculations on New Ottoman, and is not a source to reassure Muslims and Arabs.

In this particular area there is virtually no differences between Arab regimes governing on behalf of the «Salafis» and the Turkish regime which governs on behalf of the «enlightened Islam» basis on the policy of «zero» problems with neighbouring States. Everyone is in the West and with the West, there is no difference between a regime and another other than the logo.

This raises serious questions on political Islam in its various versions and its stand towards Arab issues in General, and specifically the question of Palestine. This should put Islamic Authorities and policies for open discussion: Does the Islamic ruling determine the Islamists policies toward the world, and sort who is the friend, and who is the enemy? or its controlled by interests of the Governor like any another Governor whether secular or Islamist claiming that Sharia is the source of legislation?

But this raises serious questions religion as an Authority in the policies and interests of states, especially when Islamic history is without a valid model proving the success «Islamic state» anytime, anywhere. Apart from the ritual, the Caliph State after the four wise Caliphs had become Caliph an Empire with Islamic logo ruled by a family having Quraish roots for the Governor and his family first and foremost,

Is it an exaggeration to say that the Islamic revolution in Iran has acquired something of its brilliance by raising «Palestine» banner, and cutting its ties with Israel and giving its Embassy in Tehran, occupying the size of an entire neighborhood, to Yasser Arafat?

Its normal for Arab to receive statements by some Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt and Tunisia on peace with Israel and on the Palestinian issue with surprise and rejection.

Of course, people are aware of Qatar Governor, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, proud for being from Bani Tamim, and a Wahabi before Saudis, because he is a grandson of Imam Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab, racing to establish a formal relationship with Israel by opening a representative office in Doha, while confirming his Wahabi roots by building the largest mosques in the world on behalf of «novelty», of the founder of the Saudi Wahhabism, without feeling any contradiction between this show and claiming to be at the forefront of Arab supporters of the «Arab spring» and being a guest of honor at the first anniversary of Tunisia’s celebrating Mohammed Bouazizi uprising, who ignited the revolution while burned himself because of the crisis in his poor living in the South of Tunisia.

However, the Islamist regime in Egypt emerging from parliamentary elections, putting the Muslim Brotherhood at the top of the political scene, followed by direct «NOOR PARTY» shall be a turning point, towards testing the Islamists organizations agendas and its compatibility with slogans they raised and fought and suppressed for it until they started bargaining on it during Mubarak era.

Based on transformations undergone by the Islamists, and specifically the brotherhood over the previous decades, it is natural that strong debate erupts, to check the differences that distinguish the brotherhood from the Salafi parties for this or that being so close to govern.

It is a new stage in Arab political history: Islamists are advancing to govern in more than one Arab capital, the stage is open to them to prove their merit without revenge from past persecution, in line with the aspirations of Arab peoples and demands taking into consideration that, politically, Palestine cause is the most dangerous test even if they push forward the socio-economic demands

• Hamas to leave Syria & Meshaal could step down

الإسلاميون في السلطة:
تجارب قديمة وحديثة.. والامتحان فلسطين

طلال سلمان

لم يكن للإسلام السياسي عبر تنظيماته المختلفة، صورة مشرقة في الدنيا العربية، على امتداد تاريخه الطويل، وقد طاردته الاتهامات والشبهات في منبته الفكري كما في ممارساته السياسية، تحالفاً أو اعتراضاً. في المشرق كما في بعض أنحاء المغرب العربي، اتهم تنظيم الإخوان المسلمين في وطنيته أحياناً، فتم الحديث عن ارتباط ما له بدوائر غربية استعمارية، بدأت بالبريطانيين وها هي الآن تتركز على الأميركيين، ساحبة نفسها على موقفه من الاحتلال الإسرائيلي لفلسطين، خصوصاً مع تقدمه نحو السلطة في أكثر من بلد عربي وحرصه على تطمين الإسرائيليين، عبر واشنطن، عن التزامه منطوق معاهدة الصلح المنفرد مع «دولة يهود العالم» وبمعزل عن جهودها المتواصلة لشطب فلسطين عن الخريطة وربما من الذاكرة.

ولقد كان بين أسباب التــشوه الذي أصاب صورة الإخوان المسلمين خاصة والأصوليات الإسلامية عامة، وفيها السلفية، الصدام المبكر مع ثورة 23 يوليو بقيادة جمال عبد الناصر في مصر، وهو صدام امتد تدريجياً الى مختلف منظومات العمل السياســي، رافــعة رايــة القومية العربية، فضلاً عن الحركات السياسية ذات الشعار الماركسي (الأحزاب الشيوعية وسائر التنظيمات الرديفة او المتفرعة عنها)، وصولاً الى الحركات الوطنية التي كانت ترفض أن تدمغ بشعـار ديني، في منطقة متعددة الهويات الدينـية والطائفــية، إذ ترى فيه عمـلاً تقسيمياً، يمكن ان يشق الصفوف المطلوب توحدها في مواجهة الاستعمار الغربي والأنظمة الموالية له والتي تحاول تمويه ارتباطها برفع الشعار الإسلامي.

وبغض النظر عن الصح والغلط في تلك المواجهات بل «الحروب» التي لم تنطفئ نيرانها على امتداد نصف قرن او يزيد، فقد نشأت أجيال على الخوف من التنظيمات ذات الشعار الإسلامي، لا سيما أن الأنظمة التي تتلطى خلف هذا الشعار كانت تعتبر «القومية» ومعها «العروبة» وحتى «الوطنية» بدعة من عمل الشيطان وتقاتلها، وإن من موقع دفاعي حتى تتوب عن غيها وتعود الى «الأصول» و«المنابع» مع ترويج حيي أحيانا لبعث «الخلافة» كإطار سياسي جامع لدار الإيمان!

وليس من التجني على التنظــيمات والأنظمـة التي حكمت باسم الإسلام وتحت رايته، القول إن الشيوعية قد شغلتها بأكثر مما شغلها الاحتلال الإسرائيلي لفلسطين ثم تمدده الى أراضي دول عربية بينها مصر وسوريا ولبنان ثم الأردن بعدما حوله ذلك الاحتلال من إمارة الى مملكة.. هاشمية.

وثمة أكثر من تجربة للحكم باسم الإسلام أبرزها – في هذه اللحظة – النظام الإيراني ومن ثم النظام في تركيا، وكل من النظامين يقدم تجربة مختلفة كل الاختلاف عن تجربة الآخر… ومن باب التبسيط المخل بالمعنى أن يُنسب التركي الى تنظيم الإخوان المسلمين بطبعته العربية، وأن يُنسب الإيراني الى الشيعة الإمامية التي لم تعرف لها تجربة سابقة في الحكم.

وعلى سبيل المثال لا الحصر فإن الحكم في تركيا الآن والذي يقوده «الإخوان» لم يبدل جوهره في أساسيات العلاقة سواء مع الغرب عموماً، بالولايات المتحدة الاميركية أساساً ومن ثم الحلف الأطلسي، أو مع الكيان الإسرائيلي. على الرغم من «الأزمة العارضة» التي أثارها اعتراض القوات الخاصة الإسرائيلية طريق الباخرة «مرمرة» حاملة المعونات الغذائية وبينها حليب الأطفال الى «غزة المحاصرة»، وقتل تسعة من المتطوعين على ظهرها، ومن ثم أسرها واعتقال مجموع من كانوا عليها والإصرار على محاكمتهم. وفي آخر الأخبار عن ذلك الحادث الذي ضخمته الحكومة التركية الى أقصى حد، إعلامياً، ثم سحبته فجأة من دائرة القرار، أن المدعي العام التركي قد تلقى – قبل أيام – تعليمات من الحكومة «بتجميد كل الإجراءات القانونية ضد المحافل السياسية والعسكرية في إسرائيل والتي اعتبرت متورطة في الاعتداء على السفينة مرمرة..».

تضيف الأخبار، التي نشرتها صحيفة «يديعوت احرونوت» الإسرائيلية، أن أنقره قد تنازلت عن دعواها ضد إسرائيــل، وحتى عن طلب الاعتذار منها عن هذه الجريمة الموصوفة التي شهد عليها العالم أجمع. لتركيا، بالطبع، الحق في رسم السياسة التي تراها ملائمة لمصالحها الوطنية، لكن من الضروري أن يحاكم «العرب» هذه السياسة في ضوء مصالحهم الوطنية والقومية، وضمنها بالتأكيد قضية فلسطين. فتركيا الإخوان المسلمين ما تزال تقدم التنازل تلو التنــازل للــغرب طلباً لقبولها في الاتحاد الأوروبي فلا تلقى غير الصد، الذي قارب حدود الإهانة.

وتركيا الإخوان المسلمين قد وافقت، مؤخـراً، على ما رفضـته دول أوروبية كثيرة، وهو المطلب الأميركي بنشر شبكة الصواريخ المضادة للصواريخ في أراضيها، ومن البديهي ان تثير هذه الشبكة قلق إيران والعراق وسوريا، إضافة الى روسيا، وهي المعنية أساساً به، بطبيعة الحال. وبديهي ان هذا الالتزام بأمن الغرب لا يتطابق تماماً مع تنظيرات وزير الخارجية التركية أحمد داود أوغلو عن «العثمانية الجديدة»، وليس مصدراً لطمأنة المسلمين في مختلف ديارهم.

في هذا المجال تحديداً تكاد تنعدم الفروق بين الأنظمة العربية التي تحكم باسم «السلفية» وبين النظام التركي الذي يحكم باسم «الإسلام المستنير» معتمداً سياسة «صفر مشكلات» مع دول الجوار… فالكل عند الغرب ومع الغرب لا فرق بين نظام وآخر إلا بالشعار.

وهذا يطرح جدياً مواقف الإسلام السياسي بطبعاته المختلفة من القضايا العربية عموماً، ومن القضية الفلسطينية على وجه التحديد… كما انه يطرح سياسات المرجعيات الإسلامية للنقاش المفتوح: هل تحدد «إسلامية» الحاكم سياساته تجاه العالم، وتفرز الصديق عن العدو، ام تتحكم بها المصالح شأنه شأن أي حاكم آخر، علمانياً كان ام يقول بالشريعة مصدراً للتشريع؟ بل إن هذا الأمر يطرح مسألة الدين كمرجعية في سياسات الدول ومصالحها… خصوصاً أن التاريخ يخلو من نموذج صالح لاعتماده دليلاً على نجاح «الدولة الإسلامية» في أي زمان ومكان. فدولة الخلافة قد تحولت بعد الخلفاء الراشدين الأربعة مباشرة الى إمبراطورية شعارها الإسلام لكن حكمها لعائلة تمتد جذورها الى النسب الشريف، لكن ممارساتها تستند الى مصلحة الحكم والحاكم وعائلته اولاً وأخيراً، وبمعزل عن الطقوس. [[[[[[

هل من المبالغة القول إن الثورة الإسلامية في إيران قد اكتسبت شيئاً من وهجها عبر رفعها «فلسطين» راية لها، وقطع العلاقة مع إسرائيل وتقديم سفارتها في طهران، وهي بحجم حي كامل، الى قيادة الثورة الفلسطينية بشخص ياسر عرفات؟! طبيعي والحال هذه ان تستقـبل تصريحـات بعــض قيــادات الإخوان المسلمين في مصر وتونس حول الصلــح في إسرائيـل والمـوقف من القضية الفلسطينية بشيء من الاستهجان بل والرفض الشعبي، عربياً.

وطبيعي ان يتنبه الناس الى تبــاهي حاكم قطر، الشيخ حمد بن خليفة آل ثاني، وهو كان السبّاق الى إقامــة علاقة رسمية مع إسرائيل عبر فتح مكتب تمثيلي لها في الدوحة، بأنه يتحــدر من صلب الإمام محمد بن عبد الوهاب، وأنه «وهابي» قبل الأسرة الســعودية، فهو من بني تميم، وهو بالتالي الأســاس في الدعوة الوهــابية (السلفية)،

وتأكيداً لهذا كله فقد قام ببناء واحد من أضـخم المســاجد في العالم باسم «جده»، مؤسس الوهابية التي يســتند اليها الحــكم السعودي من دون أن يشعر بأي تناقص بين هذا التباهـي وبين الادّعاء أنه في طليعة مناصري «الربيع العـربي» و«مفجــري الثوــرة العــربية»، وأن يكون ضيف الشرف في احتفال تونس بالذكرى الأولى لتفجر انتفاضة محمد البوعزيزي الذي أشـعل فتـيل الثـورة حـين أحـرق نفسه بسبب من الأزمة المعيشية في بلدته الفقيرة في الجــنوب التونسي. على أن النظام الذي سوف تســتولده الثــورة في مصــر، والـذي برزت مقدماته عبر الانتخابات النيابية التي مكــنت الإخـوان المسلمين من تصدر المشهد السياسي، يليهم مباشرة «السلـفيون» من جـماعة حزب «النور»، سيكون المفصـل في تقـويم تجربــة التنظيــمات الإسلامية ومدى تطابق سياساتها مع شعـاراتهـا التي رفعتــها وناضلت من اجلها فقمعت ثم تمت المسـاومة معها فتـم إشـراكها ـ جانبياً ـ في المجلـس النيابي الأسـبق (قبل الأخير في عهد حسني مبارك).

ومن الطبيعي ان يتفجر النقاش عفياً، مستوعباً تاريخ التجارب والتحولات التي مر بها الإسلاميون، والإخوان منهم تحديداً، على امتداد العقود السابقة. كذلك فمن البديهي أن يدقق الجمهور في طبيعة الفروقات التي تميز الإخوان عن السلفيين وقد بات الطرفان قريبين من السلطة او شريكين فيها بهذه النسبة او تلك.

هي مرحلة جديدة في التاريخ الســياسي العــربي: ها هــم الإسلاميون يتقدمون من موقع القرار في أكثر من عاصــمة عربيـة، والمجال مفتوح أمامهم لكي يثبتوا جدارتهم بإدارة شؤون البــلاد، متخففين من نزعة الثأر والانتقام من ماضي الاضطهاد، والقدرة على إعادة صياغة «النظام العربي» بما يتلاءم مع طموحات الشعوب العربية ومطالبها. وفلسطين هي الامتحان الأخطر سياسياً حتى لو تقدمت عليها المطالب الاجتماعية – الاقتصادية في معظم الأقطار التي وصل او اقترب فيها الإسلاميون من مركز القرار. تنشر بالتزامن مع جريدة «الشروق» المصرية

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!