Yemen: Attacks on Journalists Escalate

End Arbitrary Detention, Mistreatment

Link

(Sanaa) – Houthi forces and others in Yemen have committed a spate of attacks and other abuses against the media amid deteriorating political and security conditions.

In recent weeks, there has been an increase in arbitrary arrests and violence against journalists and other media workers by Ansar Allah, the Zaidi Shia armed group known as the Houthis that now controls the capital, Sanaa. Armed Ansar Allah militia has stormed the headquarters of three media outlets since January 2015. Other groups may also be involved in attacks. On March 18, unidentified gunmen killed Abdul Karim Mohammed al-Khaiwani, an Ansar Allah supporter and critic of the former government, near his home in Sanaa.

“The breakdown in security across Yemen has put the country’s media in particular danger,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East and North Africa director. “All sides in Yemen should send a clear message to their forces to stop threats and attacks against journalists.”

Ansar Allah has controlled much of northern Yemen since September 2014, and in January 2015 effectively ousted President Abdu Rabu Mansour Hadi, sparking widespread protests. On February 8, Yemen’s interim interior minister ordered Sanaa police to prevent all unauthorized demonstrations due to “the exceptional circumstances” in Yemen. This indefinite ban on public protests violates the right to peaceful assembly, Human Rights Watch said. Five employees of state broadcast and print media outlets told Human Rights Watch that since taking control of Sanaa, Ansar Allah has inserted its own people into senior positions at various media outlets.

Human Rights Watch documented seven incidents involving attacks on journalists and the media between December 31, 2014, and March 7, 2015. Ma`d al-Zekri, a cameraman for Azal TV, told Human Rights Watch that armed men took him and his 20-year-old brother from their home at 1:30 a.m. on December 31, 2014, blindfolded them, and drove them to a building where the men held the brothers in separate rooms. Al-Zekri said a man interrogated him about a news clip he had made about the Islamist militant group Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) that had aired in October, and demanded to know where an AQAP leader al-Zekri had interviewed could be found.

The cameraman said he was kept blindfolded, given electric shocks, had dirty water poured over him, and was given food and a restroom visit only once each day. “On the third day some men came in, apologized for having detained me, and said it had been a mistake,” al-Zekri told Human Rights Watch. They then warned him “not to write about or against Al-Qaeda as much,” and freed him and his brother. Al-Zekri filed a complaint with the police and the attorney general but the authorities told him they could do nothing and he should take his complaint to Ansar Allah directly.

Kamal Gamal of Suhail TV told Human Rights Watch that armed men in civilian clothes detained him and a cameraman, Yahya al-A`awar, on February 3, 2015, as they filmed a political polling process among students at Sanaa University. Gamal said the two men spoke into walkie talkies, told them that no photography or filming was permitted, and detained them when they kept filming. The armed men held the two journalists on the campus until police came and took them to a police station. Hours later, the police returned their equipment and released them.

Saif al-Haddiri, chairman of the al-Shumoa Press Foundation, which prints four publications, told Human Rights Watch that about 40 armed men believed to be Ansar Allah forced their way into the foundation’s offices on February 5. They ordered all staff to leave the five-story building, then seized computers, broadcasting and other equipment, videos, and CDs whose total value he estimated at US$18,600. Some wore military-style uniforms while others were in civilian clothes and carried slogans in support of Ansar Allah. More than a month later, the men still control the foundation’s building and continue to remove property from it, al-Haddiri said.

Ameen Dabwan, a correspondent for Yemen Shabab TV, told Human Rights Watch that five armed men in police uniforms with Ansar Allah stickers detained him on February 6 as he filmed an anti-Ansar Allah demonstration in Sanaa’s Change Square. They took his camera and later his cell phone and detained him overnight at the police station with five arrested protesters, threatening to beat them. Police released him after 24 hours but did not return his camera or his phone.

Nabil al-Sharabi, an editor at Akhbar al-Yom newspaper, told Human Rights Watch that on March 5, five men carrying assault rifles bearing Ansar Allah stickers broke into the building housing the newspaper’s staff. One wore a Special Security Forces uniform, while the others were in civilian clothes. They took him and four colleagues to the newspaper’s office in the building next door, where they forced him at gunpoint to sign a pledge not to “engage in any acts that opposed them.” They released him four hours later but still hold one of his colleagues, he said.

A Suhail TV correspondent, Hisham Hadi, told Human Rights Watch that 12 armed men in military and Special Security Forces uniforms, accompanied by 6 others in civilian clothes, seized him on March 7 as he covered a protest in Ibb, a city south of Sanaa. He said the men drove him to a private residence that they used as an unofficial detention facility where other men blindfolded, questioned, and insulted him. They released him on March 9.

Abdulrahman al-Nahari, owner of Widian FM radio station and a media services and production business in Hodaida, a port city west of Sanaa, told Human Rights Watch that about two dozen armed men in civilian clothes who said they were acting on behalf of Ansar Allah forced their way into his company’s offices on March 11. They left after three hours, but the next day an Ansar Allah leader in Hodaida told him that his outlet could no longer broadcast unless he pledged to “not broadcast any content critical” about Ansar Allah.

The Yemeni Journalists’ Syndicate has reported that Ansar Allah fighters beat at least 10 journalists, cameramen, and photographers as they covered protests between January 25 and February 25, arbitrarily detaining seven of them for various periods, and seized and smashed cameras. The Freedom Foundation, a Yemeni group that monitors press freedom, reported at least 49 attacks on the media in January.

In 2013, Human Rights Watch reported in “‘A Life-Threatening Career’: Attacks on Journalists under Yemen’s New Government” that Yemenis had gained greater freedom of expression since Hadi replaced Ali Abdullah Saleh as president in February 2012, but that this had also brought a rise in threats and violence against the media by various political groups, including Ansar Allah, Saleh supporters, and state security forces.

“These latest attacks on journalists and the media are one indicator of the desperate state of affairs in Yemen,” Stork said. “Basic security will only get worse until there’s a government in place capable of restoring the rule of law and respect for human rights.”

Yemen, long on the brink of catastrophe, may have tipped over the edge

Friday’s mosque attacks, whoever was behind them, will intensify sectarian rivalries and invite bloody reprisals. The scene is set for a protracted civil war

By Brian Whitaker

Link

Yemen has often been portrayed as a country on the brink of catastrophe. Equally often, it has defied expectations and muddled through – if only just. But the suicide attacks on two mosques that left at least 142 people dead in Sana’a last Friday are one sign, among many, that it has finally tipped over the edge.

The UN is warning helplessly about a rapid downward spiral and calling for a resumption of efforts towards a political settlement, but the prospects of that happening are virtually nil and the scene is set for a protracted civil war with multiple protagonists.

Inside Yemen, the lineup of forces is complicated. One key player is Ali Abdullah Saleh, who was ousted from the presidency in 2012 after 34 years in power and has been causing trouble ever since.

Saleh appears to be colluding with the Houthis, whom he previously fought in a series of wars in the far north of the country. His alliance with the Houthis is seen by many as a tactical move aimed at eventually installing his son, Ahmad, as president.

Yemen mosque bombings 'could only be done by the enemies of life' – president

 

Read more

The Houthis – officially known as Ansar Allah (the Supporters of God) – belong to the Zaidi sect, a branch of Shia Islam, and had long been marginalised. Last September, however, their fighters swept unexpectedly into the capital and, meeting negligible resistance, seized control of it.

Although the Houthis managed to bring down the government, they have so far failed to assert control over the whole country and, left to their own devices, are probably incapable of doing so. But that doesn’t stop them from trying, and on Saturday they entered the central city of Taiz, which is seen as a stepping stone towards an attempted takeover of the south.

Ranged against Saleh and the Houthis is Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, who succeeded Saleh to the presidency. After arriving in Sana’a, the Houthis put Hadi under house arrest and pressed him into resigning.

Hadi escaped, withdrew his resignation and resurfaced with some of his entourage in the southern city of Aden, which he is trying to establish as an alternative capital.

Both Hadi and Saleh have support from different sections of the military, and clashes have broken out between them. Last week, Hadi’s Aden compound was hit by an air raid, and gunfights closed Aden airport for several hours.

Also in the south, fighting near al-Anad airbase on Friday triggered the hasty evacuation of the last remaining US special forces in the country. Later, pro-Hadi forces, including tribal militias, captured the base from pro-Saleh forces.

It remains to be seen, though, whether Hadi is truly welcome in the south, where the Herak movement has been agitating for independence from the north. Hadi is himself a southerner but, having spent 17 years as Saleh’s deputy, he may be too closely associated with what the separatists regard as northern domination.

The UN is warning helplessly about a rapid downward spiral

Hadi is still recognised by the UN as Yemen’s president but his legitimacy is wearing thin. His accession to the presidency was ratified, after a fashion, in a one-candidate “election” and his term in office was originally supposed to last only until 2014.

In the north, meanwhile, and following their conquest of Sana’a, the Houthis have been settling old scores with the Sunni-Islamist Islah party – previously the largest of Yemen’s opposition parties. For religious reasons, the Houthis are also, of course, sworn enemies of al-Qaida, whose presence in Yemen seems undiminished despite numerous drone attacks by the Americans.

The two mosques attacked by suicide bombers on Friday were linked to the Houthis. Responsibility has been claimed in the name of Islamic State, though the authenticity of that claim has been disputed. AQAP, the local branch of al-Qaida, denies any involvement – in line with its recently declared policy of refraining from attacks on civilians.

Isis has not previously been active in Yemen and if its claim turns out to be true, this will add an alarming new dimension to the developing conflict.

But regardless of who was behind the Friday bombings, slaughtering fellow Muslims as they pray intensifies sectarian aspects of the conflict that have not been particularly apparent until now, and invites reprisals of a similarly bloody kind.

So far, this is primarily an internal conflict but the longer it continues the more likely it is to become internationalised – especially in the context of Sunni-Shia rivalries in the region. Neighbouring Saudi Arabia has always meddled in Yemeni politics, and its most recent military intervention, in 2010, took the form of air strikes against the Houthis. The more Saudi Arabia becomes involved, the more likely it is that Iran will step up support for the Houthis.

It need not have come to this. In 1993, shortly after the unification of north and south, Yemen became the first country in the Arabian peninsula to hold multiparty elections under universal suffrage. But despite high hopes at the time, electoral politics didn’t deliver – mainly because Saleh was unwilling to accept the possibility of being voted out of office. In 1999, when Yemen held its first contested presidential election, Saleh’s only opponent was an obscure member of his own party whose campaign expenses were being funded by Saleh. Saleh was duly elected, with 96% of the votes.

Hopes flickered again in 2011 when tens of thousands of Yemenis, across a broad political spectrum, took to the streets calling on Saleh to resign. Central to these protests was the emergence of a new generation of political activists who set up camp near Sana’a university in an area they named Change Square – and stayed there for months.

Saleh resisted, clinging to power in the face of this popular uprising for more than a year. He eventually stepped down under a deal brokered by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and approved by the UN.

Ludicrous as it might seem to entrust the GCC’s autocratic monarchies with shaping Yemen’s post-Saleh development, that is what happened. The GCC deal sidelined the youth activists and stymied the revolution. It provided for Saleh to hand power to his deputy, Hadi, but much of the old regime remained intact.

Worst of all, Saleh was granted immunity from prosecution and allowed to stay in Yemen. That, more than any other single decision, contributed most to deepening the political crisis.

Yemen in Crisis: U.S. Closes Key Drone Base & Withdraws Forces as U.N. Warns of Civil War

Democracy Now!

"After touting its "successful" counterterrorism model in Yemen, the United States has evacuated its remaining personnel, including 100 special operations forces from a military base seen as key in the drone war against al-Qaeda. This comes amidst worsening violence between government forces and Shia Houthi rebels, and an attack claimed by the Islamic State that killed dozens of worshipers at two mosques. The United Nations has warned Yemen is on the brink of an "Iraq-Libya-Syria"-type civil war. We are joined by Iona Craig, a journalist who was based in Sana’a for four years as the Yemen correspondent for The Times of London...."

Is Obama really going to get tough with Israel?

By Ali Abunimah

Link

It is late in Obama’s term for him to be considering minimal actions against Israel and to expect them to have any real impact on its rogue behavior.

 (Pete Souza / The White House)

Since Benjamin Netanyahu’s convincing re-election victory last week, the talk of adeepening breach between the US and Israel has escalated.

But we should be highly skeptical that the administration of US President Barack Obama will take any serious steps that benefit Palestinian rights.

The perception of a growing rift has been fed first and foremost by the White House itself. In the wake of Netanyahu’s win, Obama’s spokesperson slammed the Israeli prime minister’s “divisive rhetoric” for railing that Palestinian citizens of Israel were going out to vote “in droves.”

Obama himself reiterated this criticism in an interview with The Huffington Post.

“We indicated that that kind of rhetoric was contrary to what is the best of Israel’s traditions,” the president said. “That although Israel was founded based on the historic Jewish homeland and the need to have a Jewish homeland, Israeli democracy has been premised on everybody in the country being treated equally and fairly.”

Even in ostensibly criticizing Israel, Obama manages to heap undue praise on it. Of course Israeli “democracy” has nothing to do with equality: it is an ethnocracy founded on ethnic cleansing and the relentless subjugation of the remaining non-Jewish population.

No Palestinian state

But what has most disturbed the US administration is Netanyahu’s avowal during the last days of the election campaign that he would never allow the creation of a Palestinian state on his watch.

“We take him at his word when he said that it wouldn’t happen during his prime ministership, and so that’s why we’ve got to evaluate what other options are available to make sure that we don’t see a chaotic situation in the region,” Obama said.

“We continue to believe that a two-state solution is the only way for the long-term security of Israel if it wants to stay both a Jewish state and democratic,” he added.

Asked more specifically what he might do, Obama detailed what he wouldn’t do – exact any price in terms of the US military aid without which Israel could not continue to occupy, colonize and massacre Palestinians with impunity:

“We’re gonna make sure, regardless of disagreements we have on policy that our military and intelligence cooperation to keep the Israeli people safe continues, and that cooperation also helps the American people stay safe,” the president said.

Trial balloons

While Obama has remained circumspect, his administration has sent up trial balloons through David Ignatius, a Washington Post columnist closely allied with the US administration.

Ignatius reports that the White House is “privately weighing” the following “pressure tactics”:

• Drafting a new UN Security Council resolution outlining the framework for a Palestinian state. Such a resolution might summarize the parameters that emerged during Secretary of State John Kerry’s negotiations with Israelis and Palestinians that collapsed last year.
• Deterring Netanyahu’s plans to expand settlements in the West Bank, perhaps through warnings in a planned report to Congress on loan guarantees to Israel. President George H.W. Bush briefly cut off loan guarantees in 1991 to protest settlements, creating a political uproar but no lasting success in halting settlements.
• Altering current US policy that opposes Palestinian efforts to take complaints against Israel to the International Criminal Court. Similarly, the United States might relax its pressure against European allies that are advocating sanctions against Israel.
• Weighing future vetoes of UN Security Council resolutions condemning Israeli settlements or other activity. In the past, the United States’ use of the veto to support Israeli positions has been all but automatic.

A UN resolution?

The first of these – a UN resolution – would cause excitement among those who may be impressed by the rare spectacle of a US president allowing the passage of a resolution even mildly critical of Israel.

But any resolution likely to be approved by Obama would have as its first and foremost goal rescuing and legislating the so-called “two-state solution” and Israel’s status as a “Jewish and democratic state.”

I do not oppose a UN resolution in principle, but I oppose one that would – like the one put forward by the Palestinian Authority last December – undermine fundamental Palestinian rights.

As I wrote at the time of the failed December resolution:

I evaluate any steps related to Palestine through a simple and consistent lens: does this measure take us closer to the fulfillment of Palestinian rights, all Palestinian rights?

These rights are set out most succinctly in the Palestinian call for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS): an end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian land during and since 1967; an end to Israel’s institutionalized racism against Palestinians in present-day Israel (the areas on which Israel was established in 1948); and the return of Palestinian refugees to their land and homes.

Obama’s commitment to securing a “Jewish and democratic” Israel is wholly incompatible with Palestinian refugee rights and full equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel.

(Also read Joseph Massad’s important article from December: “Recognizing Palestine, BDS and the survival of Israel”).

Too little, too late

With respect to the possible administration steps he outlines, Ignatius claims: “Adoption of any of these measures would open a wide and potentially destabilizing breach between the two allies, and the administration’s consideration of them now is probably partly tactical.”

In other words, these are mostly empty threats. But more than that all of them are minimal and mild. As noted, there’s nothing here about using the billions that the US gives to Israel every year as leverage – the no-strings-attached aid would presumably continue.

In the year 2015, who could possibly be impressed by the possibility of mere “warnings in a planned report to Congress on loan guarantees to Israel?”

The more promising possibility is that Obama could lessen his staunch opposition to Palestinians bringing Israeli war criminals to justice at the International Criminal Court. But again, if Obama were serious, the first step he would take is to halt the supplies of weapons that are used to occupy and murder Palestinians.

We must not forget that at the height of Israel’s massacre in Gaza last summer, the Obama administration opened its weapons stores to the Israeli military, resupplying it with bombs and grenades of the kind that were causing indiscriminate casualties among Palestinian civilians.

No UN resolutions are needed for that. Obama has executive authority to act. Moreover, a real sign of seriousness would be if the Obama administration were to open an investigation into Israel’s use of US weapons to commit human rights crimes.

The State Department has a mandate to do this under the 1976 Arms Export Control Actbut has refused to fulfill it.

It is late in Obama’s term for him to be considering minimal actions against Israel and to expect them to have any real impact on its rogue behavior.

Obama must know that even if he took all the measures being floated they would generate much political heat and backlash, while doing little to bring about a “two-state solution” on his watch. But that backlash could further jeopardize his chances of getting a potential deal with Iran through Congress. So expect him to do little or nothing.

To be sure, as I and others have argued, Netanyahu’s re-election presents an important opportunity for Palestinians as it widens the cracks between Israel and the rest of the world.

But we must keep pushing for all rights for all Palestinians – through boycott, divestment and sanctions – and not allow this moment to be coopted by efforts to rescue – even if only on paper – the segregationist “two-state solution.”

Why do we write?

By Hamid Dabashi

Link

Comment: Netanyahu's victory in the Israeli election poses the question why we bother to write after the triumph of the antithesis of our humanity, asks Hamid Dabashi.

The news of Binyamin Netanyahu's latest victory in the apartheid state of Israel was no surprise at all, and yet it was deeply troubling. Two questions arise from that simple fact. Why was it troubling, and in light of the enormity of such an electoral calamity how is it that we continue to write? What else remains to be said?

Shouldn't such disasters just force us to pause and wonder for a while? To dare to put pen to paper, or fingers to keyboard, requires a modicum of hope, foregrounded on trust, that the banality of this vicious circle must one day come to end. How is it that even after witnessing the facile

Netanyahu's victory was not surprising because the majority of Israelis are delusional fanatics.

mendacity of yet another Israeli election (in which the most fundamental fact of the robbery of another people's homeland is systematically ignored) we can continue to muster courage to write?

Netanyahu's victory was not surprising because the majority of Israelis (namely those who voted him back into office) are delusional fanatics who have worked themselves into a frenzied stupour to murder more Palestinians, steal more of Palestine, wage war against Lebanon, Syria or Iran, and do whatever other murderous mischief is necessary to convince them from within that self-propelling hurricane of death and destruction that they are right and the whole world is wrong.

But that frightful recognition is not sufficient to preempt a sense of morbid terror at the sight of Netanyahu's victory. The lingering question persists: how could any decent human being vote for this warmonger propped up by an even more bellicose billionaire called Sheldon Adelson?

Netanyahu's openly and boldly racist campaign warns Israelis that "Arabs" are being bussed by the left to vote against him, which is like a US republican candidate warning that "Blacks" are being bussed to vote. He categorically promised that Palestinians will never have a state of their own. Yet he proceeds to win the Israeli election.

"The rule of the right is in danger," Netanyahu frightened his followers. "Arab voters are coming in droves to the ballot boxes. Left-wing NGOs bring them in buses."

Could a politician be any more racist - is racism even a vice in Israel? 

Throughout his campaign, according to reports, Netanyahu has accused foreign governments of funding NGOs, or non-governmental organisations, to undermine his leadership. But in the last four days, the prime minister moved even further to the right, culminating in a statement last Monday that there would be no Palestinian state if he was reelected.

Could a Zionist be any clearer that they lie through their teeth when they pretend they want peace with Palestinians? Is cheating and lying even considered an act of moral depravity in Israel?

What is left to say? This is Israel: a deeply and pervasively racist, bigoted, warmongering, land-grabbing, murderous, conniving, apartheid settler colony, staging itself for the whole world to see.

"As an Israeli," Bradley Burston wrote in Haaretz, "I am ashamed that my prime minister is a racist." But what would that admission entail, and thus what does it exactly mean? "All this week," Burston mourns, "he made us one consistent promise: In his coming term as prime minister, there will be no hope. It is one promise that we have all come to believe he can keep."

No hope in what? No hope in Netanyahu, no hope for peace, or no hope in Zionism having ever having had any design than to steal the entirety of Palestine and continue with the ethnic cleansing of its inhabitants? What is Netanyahu doing or planning to do that Israeli prime minsters have not done since David Ben-Gurion? Why single out and demonise Netanyahu and thus seemingly exonerate the very idea of Israel, the very project of Zionism?

These questions are for Israelis and the Zionists to answer. The more urgent question for the rest of the world is to wonder how and what to write after a calamity like the enthusiastic and decisive victory of a barefacedly racist warmonger like Benjamin Netanyahu?

From the political to the existential

The question is no longer political. It is existential. You may think the world that has seen monstrosities like Hitler and other mass murderers in power would be immune to being shocked by the election of yet another petty, gaudy, racist warmonger to power. But it is not - every dram of evil we witness in our own lifetime and with our own eyes diminishes a much heavier and healthier fragment of our humanity. We lose sight, vision, viability, by being witness to such atrocities. To write is an act of defiance against this frightful abyss.

No Muslim ever voted for Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi or Osama bin Laden, but millions of Israelis go to the polls and vote for Netanyahu.

Every time a vile and violent, corrupt and corrupting, politician stands up and says "I", the effrontery morphs and darkens the shape of any opening horizon of hope through which we might one day find our way to deliverance from this darkness. The resounding victory of Netanyahu in Israel is no less a terrorising act than the Islamic State group's (IS) destruction of the very sites of human civilisation in Iraq. They both assault the very fabric of our humanity. To write is to rebuild our confidence that we can combat criminality every step of the way we walk towards a saner posterity.

There is a very basic difference between the emphatic victory of Netanyahu in Israel and the rise of the IS in the Arab world. No Arab or Muslim ever voted for Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi or before him for Osama bin Laden, while millions of Israelis actually go to their polls and vote for Netanyahu. Yes indeed, there are thousands of Israelis who are deeply troubled by the results of this election. But they all seem to be oblivious to the fact that the whole Zionist project, just like the militant Islamist project, is morally corrupt and politically bankrupt. To write is to articulate the terms of this systematically repressed reality.

This is where the task of thinking and talking and writing announces itself. On this frightful precipice when we see Netanyahu waving to his admirers (much as when we see IS thugs putting a hammer to an ancient relic of our humanity) writing is no longer a choice, or even a responsibility. It is the breathing sign of a healthy humanity that refuses to yield to barbarity.

من هاجم «باردو»: «الدولة الإسلامية» أم أجهزة أمنية؟

Link

رأي القدس

MARCH 22, 2015

كرّر الرئيس التونسي قائد السبسي في تصريح له أمس المعزوفة إيّاها عن أن بلاده هي «ضحيّة الإرهاب الإقليمي والمشاكل القائمة في دول الجوار وخاصة ليبيا»، وهي المقولة التي تستخدمها الأنظمة العربية كلها، باعتبار أن بلدانها هي نماذج في التماسك السياسي والاجتماعي وأمثلة تحتذى في المدنية والديمقراطية وأن ما يحصل من «إرهاب» فيها إنما يهبط عليها من الفضاء الخارجي.
غير أن الرئيس التونسي أقرّ مع ذلك بـ»وجود إخلالات أمنية» خلال الهجوم الذي استهدف متحف باردو في تونس كاشفاً إلى وجود إرهابيّ ثالث شارك في العملية وتمكن من الفرار.
الأنباء التي وصلت من تونس تشير إلى تداول شريط «فيديو» منسوب لقناة «تونسنا» الخاصة، يُظهر هروب مجموعة من الناس من المتحف أثناء حصاره من قبل قوات الأمن بينهم منقبتان. الشريط الموجود على قنوات التواصل الاجتماعي يزعم أن المنقبتين دخلتا سيّارة أمنية نراها في شريط الفيديو تسرع بالخروج من المنطقة تحت أنظار قوّات الأمن المدججة بالسلاح، ملمّحاً إلى تورّط لأجهزة أمن تونسية في العملية.
ولو تركنا هذا التقرير وافتراضاته المثيرة جانباً واعتمدنا ما قاله السبسي نفسه الذي كشف وجود إرهابي ثالث شارك في الهجوم وتمكن من الفرار، وحللنا حديثه لوسائل إعلام فرنسية عن ضعف التنسيق بين الأجهزة الأمنية الذي خلق ثغرة استغلها «الإرهابيون» في الهجوم على المتحف، وربطنا كل ذلك بموجة تصريحات انطلقت بعد العملية حول «ضرورة عودة الكفاءات الأمنية» التونسية، وأضفنا إلى ذلك جملة ممارسات أمنية عربية في مصر وسوريا والجزائر (وكذلك إسرائيل طبعاً) نفّذت فيها أجهزة استخبارات عمليات إرهابية داخل بلدانها لأغراض سياسية، لدخلنا، بدورنا، في شكّ من كل ما حصل في «عملية باردو».
ما يزيد غموض العملية التي أدت لمقتل 20 سائحاً أجنبياً وعنصر أمن واحد (إضافة الى العنصرين المهاجمين)، أن لا وزارة الداخلية التونسية ولا جهاز الرئاسة ولا الإعلام التونسي استطاع حتى الآن تقديم رواية واحدة لكيفية حصول العملية وسبب مقتل كل هؤلاء.
غريب أننا لم نسمع أيّاً من البلدان التي قتل مواطنوها في الهجوم تطالب بتقديم رواية واضحة وشفافة عن أسباب مقتلهم، ولم تعرض خدماتها الجنائية أو الأمنية، والأغرب من ذلك أن المتحف نفسه أعلن أنه سيفتح أبوابه بعد «نزع دماء القتلى وترميم بعض الأشياء البسيطة» والسبب أن «الخسائر المادية الناجمة عن هجوم باردو لا تكاد تذكر. أي هي بعض الشظايا التي تناثرت هنا وهناك»، بحيث يتحوّل الحدث إلى «كرنفال» عجيب لإدانة الإرهاب دون أي تدقيق في مجرياته الحقيقية.
وتزامنت هذه التطورات مع حملة «أعيدوا الكفاءات الأمنية» (أي أعيدوا النظام القديم مع جلاديه وسلطته البوليسية)، مما يثير الشبهات بوجود خطّة متكاملة قد يكون لأحد الأجهزة الأمنية السابقة (واللاحقة ربما) دور فيها. ومثل هذه الخطة، ورغم فظاعتها، إلا انها ليست غريبة عن العقلية الأمنية العربية وطرق اشتغالها، والتي لا تتورّع عن أي كبيرة إذا كانت تحقق لها أهدافها. والهدف، في هذه الحالة الأخيرة، بسبب استهدافه لسيّاح أجانب، هو شدّ الغرب لدعم عودة النظام الأمنيّ القديم، والتدخّل المباشر في ليبيا وتونس.
جدير بالذكر أن «الدولة الإسلامية» صارت الشمّاعة التي يمكن لأي كان تعليق أي شيء عليها، ومن هنا نرى عمليّاتها تتطاير في كل مكان دون أن يتجرأ أحد على السؤال: من الفاعل؟

رأي القدس

الواقع العربي- ماذا بقي من فكرة الجيش اليمني؟

تسجيلات مصورة تظهر انتهاكات لقوات الأمن العراقية

لا يذهب الإسرائيليون للانتخابات من أجل العرب

Link

عزمي بشارة

ثبت، مرة أخرى، أن لدى اليمين الإسرائيلي أكثرية سياسية (وحتى سوسيولوجية). هذه حقيقة ثابتة، لم تتغير منذ عام 1977، فقد تقلصت القواعد الاجتماعية لحركة العمل الصهيونية، مع تحول الاقتصاد إلى الرأسمالية المتطورة، وازدياد مشاركة اليهود الشرقيين في المجال السياسي، وهم الذين لم يرتبطوا تاريخياً بحزب العمل ومشروعه، بل باليمين. كما تراجعت أهمية حركة العمل الصهيونية التاريخية مع إنجاز مهمة بناء الدولة (على أساس تهجير العرب و"جمع الشتات" اليهودي). فبعد العام 1967 واحتلال غزة والضفة الغربية (بما فيها القدس)، طرحت أجندات أخرى مرتبطة بالاستيطان وعلاقة الدين بالقومية، أجاب عليها اليمين الإسرائيلي بشكل أكثر تلاؤماً مع واقع إسرائيل التوسعي الجديد.

نذكر، هنا، أن حركة العمل الصهيونية هي التي أسست الكيان السياسي للصهيونية، وهي التي خاضت خمس حروب ضد العرب، منها حرب احتلال فلسطين عام 1948.
منذ عام 1977 تفوق حزب العمل على الليكود في حالتين، هما انتخابات عامي 1992 و1999، لكن معسكر اليمين والمتدينين حافظ على الأغلبية عموماً. وقد نشأ احتمال أن يتكرر ذلك هذا العام، بسبب شخصية نتنياهو وعدم مصداقيته، حتى مع حلفائه الداخليين والخارجيين من جهة، وتهميش قضية فلسطين، وتصدر قضايا "الأمن"، في جدول أعمال الانتخابات من جهة أخرى. لكنه تمكن من إعادة قضية فلسطين على جدول أعمال المصوت اليميني، بتخويف اليمين من احتمال تشكيل حكومةٍ، يقودها هرتسوغ "قد تقبل بدولة فلسطينية"، فاكتسب أصواتاً من الأحزاب اليمينية، تريد أن تضمن بقاء اللكيود الحزب الأكبر. كما نجح في تخويف الناخب اليميني من ارتفاع نسبة التصويت للعرب، إذ قام باستفزاز غرائز الجمهور اليهودي عنصرياً ضدهم.
وعملياً، لم يحصل انتقال أصوات بين المعسكرات، بل داخل معسكر اليمين نفسه من الأحزاب الأصغر إلى الليكود.

وليس واضحا تماماً كيف سوف تبدو الحكومة، وإذا ما كانت ضيقة القاعدة مقتصرة على اليمين والمتدينين، أم واسعة تشمل قوة من المعسكر المنافس؟ لكن، ما بات واضحاً جلياً هو ما يجب أن يعرفه العرب المراهنون على الانتخابات الإسرائيلية كي تعدّل لهم موازين القوى في صالحهم. وهو أن هذا الرهان عقيم، لا علاقة له بالواقع الإسرائيلي، بقدر ما له علاقة ببؤس الواقع الفلسطيني أو العربي.

ليست الخبرة الفلسطينية المستجدة المحتفى بها بالشأن الإسرائيلي، والاهتمام بتفاصيل الحياة الانتخابية فيها، ذات علاقة بمعرفة العدو من أجل محاربته، أو للتفوق عليه في أثناء مفاوضته؛ بل ترتبط، أساساً، بعدم محاربة العدو، وبوصول المفاوضات معه إلى مأزقها الحتمي. فمن يراهن على الانتخابات الإسرائيلية هو ذاته من لم يعد يراهن على المقاومة (المسلحة أو السلمية)، والذي واجه، أخيراً، حقيقة ساطعة، لم يعد ممكنا تمويهها، هي غياب الإرادة الإسرائيلية للتوصل إلى حل دائم، أو حتى للاتفاق على أسس مرجعية للتفاوض.

"اجترحت الحركة الوطنية، في منتصف التسعينات، معادلة الموازنة بين فكرة دولة المواطنين من جهة والحقوق الجماعية القومية للعرب في الداخل، إلى جانب التمسك بعدالة القضية الفلسطينية؛ وعلى أساس هذه المعادلة، بلورت الخطاب الذي قلب المفاهيم"

وبعد تمنية للنفس بأن تنقذ الانتخابات الإسرائيلية "عملية السلام"، جاء تفويض المجتمع الإسرائيلي نتنياهو لمزيد من الغطرسة والتعنت في المفاوضات، ومن العدوانية في الممارسات الاستيطانية الاحتلالية. فالإسرائيليون لا يمكن أن يفكروا بتقديم ما يسمونها "تنازلات"، في غياب أسباب لذلك، من نوع أن يدفعوا ثمن عدم تقديمها. لا تتعرض إسرائيل لاي نوع من الضغط العربي حالياً، ومن يتعرض للضغط الإسرائيلي والعربي حالياً هم الفلسطينيون، ولا سيما في غزة.
ليست الانتخابات الإسرائيلية مخرجا لمن ليست لديه استراتيجية، والإسرائيليون لن يصوتوا من أجل الفلسطينيين أو العرب.
أما بالنسبة للقائمة العربية المشتركة، فالإيجابي فيها أنها وفرت على العرب في الداخل معركة انتخابيةً، لا تخلو من شراسة يخوضونها كل دورة انتخابية فيما بينهم، ولكن، ليس لغرض الوصول إلى السلطة، بل إلى مقاعد المعارضة في الكنيست، وحتى إلى مقاعد على هامش المعارضة الاسرائيلية. وأفضل ما يمكن أن يفعلوه أن يحسنوا تمثيل قضايا شعبهم المدنية والوطنية، ويحافظوا على هويتهم العربية الفلسطينية في مواجهة تياري المستعمِر السائديْن في البرلمان: اليمين الصهيوني الفظ، واليسار الصهيوني الوصائي. وأسوأ ما يمكن أن يفعلوه هو محاولة نيل إعجاب المستعمِر بالتأسرل وادعاء الاعتدال، وفصل القضايا المدنية عن الوطنية، والخوض في لعبة التهريج والاستفزازات المعروفة الحدود سلفا.

لا توجد في إسرائيل قضية مساواة للعرب، من نوع المعركة من أجل مساواة اليهود الشرقيين"، أو اليهود المتدينين، أو القضايا الطبقية على أنواعها. فهذه يجري التعامل معها في إطار الإجماع الصهيوني الذي يرى أن مسؤولية الدولة اليهودية التعامل معها، ويعتبر حلها من واجباتها.
أما المساواة للعرب كمواطنين هم السكان الأصليون في البلاد، فلا يمكن فصله عن القضية الوطنية، فليس ممكناً فعلاً بدون نفي الطبيعة الصهيونية للدولة. المساواة للعرب في الدولة اليهودية غير ممكنة، لأنها نقيض تعريف الدولة اليهودية لذاتها ولوظائفها. ومن هنا، فإن الأسرلة والدخول في لعبة السياسة الإسرائيلية على أساس التسليم بهذا الواقع يعني نفي الذات. وهنا، يبدأ تشويه ليس له حدود، يبدأ بتبني نفسية المستعمَر وتقليد المستعمِر، وقد يصل إلى حد التآمر والوشاية على المتطرّفين.

لقد اجترحت الحركة الوطنية، في منتصف تسعينات القرن الماضي، معادلة الموازنة بين فكرة دولة المواطنين من جهة والحقوق الجماعية القومية للعرب في الداخل، إلى جانب التمسك بعدالة القضية الفلسطينية؛ وعلى أساس هذه المعادلة، بلورت الخطاب الذي قلب المفاهيم؛ وليست الوحدة مناسبة لخلط الحابل بالنابل وتهميش هذه الفكرة، بل لتحويلها إلى خطاب مركزي. والضمان هو بناء قواعد الحركة الوطنية الفلسطينية في الداخل ومؤسساتها، وتنشئة شبابها على هذا الأساس.

Current Al-Jazeera (Arabic) Online Poll

Do you support international intervention to resolve the crisis in Yemen?

So far, 61% have voted no.

حديث الثورة-شهادات مروعة على الانتهاك الممنهج لحقوق الإنسان بسوريا

A SHOCKING REPORT.....
A MUST SEE!

استعرض برنامج "حديث الثورة" شهادة مجند سابق خدم في سجن المزة العسكري حول طرق التعذيب المتبعة في سوريا، إضافة إلى صور فوتوغرافية حصرية تظهر مأساة الثورة السورية.
تقديم: محمود مراد

تمكنت الجزيرة من التسجيل مع أحد الشهود وهو مجند منشق خدم في سجن المزة العسكري، وكان شاهدا على سقوط عشرات الضحايا من المدنيين منذ بدايات الثورة، وشاهدا على كيفية التعامل القاسي مع جثث المدنيين التي كانت تصل للسجن.

 وبحسب شهادة هذا المجند لحلقة السبت 21/3/2015 من برنامج "حديث الثورة"، فإنه وفي بدايات الثورة وصلت للمستشفى الذي كان يعمل به حوالي 45 جثة لمواطنين من درعا، قيل لهم إنها جثث لمندسين، مشيرا إلى أن وصول الجثث توالى منذ ذلك الحين، وكانت الجثث تصل من مختلف الأفرع الأمنية وتوالت الجثث بعد ذلك من الأفرع الأمنية المختلفة، وكانت تحضر إلى المستشفى بسيارة مغلقة.

وبحسب شهادة المجند -وكما أظهرت الصورة- فإن السجانين كانوا يكتبون على الجثث بالقلم الأسود إلى أي الأفرع الأمنية تنتمي، وتترك في العراء مدة يومين أو ثلاثة ممددة على الأرض، لتأتي  الكلاب والجرادين  لتنهشها، ريثما يصل عددها إلى مائتين أو ثلاثمائة جثة.

وبعد ذلك يأتي الطبيب الشرعي ويقوم بتفريز الجثث ويأمر بتعبئة بعضها في أكياس وتحميلها في السيارات، وتترك التي لم يأمر الطبيب بتحميلها في مكانها.

وأوضح الشاهد أنهم كانوا يرصون الجثث فوق بعضها في السيارات مثل أعواد الكبريت، وكان تظهر عليها آثار التعذيب والضرب بالكهرباء والإصابة بالجرب والجوع، موضحا أن أعمار الضحايا كانت تتراوح بين عشرة أعوام وسبعين عاما.

وأضاف الشاهد أنه سمع أن هذه الجثث ترسل إلى محرقة للجثث تم إنشاؤها بمستشفى المزة وكان يشرف عليها شخص قادم من إيران، وأنها كانت تتعرض إلى أنواع من التشبيح مثل الضرب والدعس بالإقدام، وأكد أن أحد زملائهم حاول الانشقاق ولكن تم القبض عليه وأحضر إلى المستشفى جثة هامدة.

مأساة القرن
وحول أساليب التعذيب المتبعة، قال السجان المنشق عن فرع "الخطيب الأمني" في دمشق فهد الحميد إن طرق التعذيب تباينت عند بداية الثورة بين الصعق بالكهرباء والتجويع وصب الماء البارد، موضحا أن المشافي بها جناح للجهات الأمنية توضع فيه الجثث والمعتقلون.

وأضاف أن الأطباء الشرعيين كانوا يعطون تقارير طيبة -بناء على تعليمات النظام- تفيد بأن الموقوف تعرض لجلطة قلبية حادة وأجريت له صدمه كهربائية لإنقاذه تسببت في وفاته.

وبحسب الحميد، فإن عمليات التعذيب والتحقيق والقتل كانت توكل لأشخاص مختصين للقيام بها، لأن الثقة كانت معدومة في أبناء السنة، وأوضح أنه تعرض شخصيا للسجن لمدة شهرين بتهمة التعاطف مع الموقوفين.

ووصف عمليات التعذيب بأنها كانت قاسية جدا، وكانت التعليمات للسجان بأخذ المعلومات من الموقوف بأي طريقة مثل طريقة "بساط الريح" والصعق بالكهرباء، والضرب والتجويع، وأكد أن التهم التي توجه إلى الأطفال كانت دوما تدور في فلك الانضمام إلى الثوار، وكان الهدف من تعذيبهم هو انتزاع اعترافات منهم.

"كنا نرص الجثث فوق بعضها مثل أعواد الكبريت، وكانت تظهر عليها آثار التعذيب والضرب بالكهرباء والإصابة بالجرب والجوع وتتراوح الفئات العمرية بين عشرة أعوام وسبعين عاما"

تعذيب ممنهج
من ناحيته، أكد المحامي المكلف بملف المعتقلين ضحايا التعذيب في سوريا توبي كادمان على أهمية شهادة المنشق فهد الحميد، وأوضح أن هذه الأعمال تعتبر جرائم حرب وجرائم ضد الإنسانية، وأن ما كشفت عنه الصور يوضح أن هذه السياسات مارستها الدولة، الأمر الذي يتماشى مع التوصيف القانوني باعتبارها جرائم حرب.

وأكد المحامي أن الأدلة والصور الفوتوغرافية تعتبر أدلة دامغة، ولكنه أشار إلى أن من الضروري أن يتقدم بعض شهود العيان بشهادتهم حتى يمكن ذلك من محاكمة المسؤولين في النظام السوري ولو على المدى البعيد.

وأشار كادمان إلى أن عدم عضوية سوريا في محكمة الجنايات الدولية ومعارضة روسيا والصين وقفت حائلا دون إحالة الملف السوري إلى المحكمة، ولكنه أكد على أهمية استغلال شهادة المواطنين الأجانب ذوي الأصول السورية، كما دعا إلى العمل على دفع المجتمع الدولي لإنشاء محكمة خاصة بسوريا.

أما الطبيب الشرعي عدنان الحسن فقد أوضح أن الصور تجعله يدرك كطبيب شرعي محترف بنسبة 90% الأسباب التي أدت إلى وفاة الجثث التي تم الكشف عنها، وأضاف أن بعض الجثث كشفت عن فقدان بعض الأجزاء منها، وبعضها الآخر يتضح عليها الهزال الناتج عن الجوع والطعن في الصدر والعينين وكسر الجمجمة والجروح المفتوحة التي نتجت عنها الغرغرينا إضافة إلى الصعق الكهربائي والتعذيب.

وأشار إلى أن الطبيب الشرعي يعمل موظفا لدى الحكومة، وأن معظمهم يخضعون تحت ظل الأنظمة الدكتاتورية إلى الانصياع للتعليمات التي تملى عليهم، ويكتبون التقرير الذي ترضى عنه السلطات.

"تترك الجثث في العراء مدة يومين أو ثلاثة ممددة على الأرض، وتنهش الكلاب والقطط لحومها "

شهود العيان
من جهته، قدر عضو الجمعية السورية للمفقودين ومعتقلي الرأي عماد الدين الرشيد ضحايا التعذيب في سوريا بحوالي 11 ألف ضحية حتى نهاية عام 2011، وأشار إلى صعوبة الحصول على إحصاء دقيق يغطي جميع السنوات اللاحقة.

وأكد الرشيد أن جل المعتقلين المنتمين إلى الثورة يتعرضون لمثل هذا التعذيب، وأن أكثر من 50% من الضحايا سقطوا ضحايا للتعذيب بالتجويع، وأوضح أن الفرع 215 يسمى "جهنم" ويعتبر المقر الأساسي الذي تتم فيه التصفية، ويرسل إليه الذين يريد النظام التخلص منهم.

واتفق عضو الجمعية مع المحامي كادمان في أهمية أن يتقدم شهود عيان من الضحايا -ولا سيما حاملي الجنسيات الأجنبية من السوريين- حتى يساعد ذلك في تقديم ملف قضايا التعذيب إلى محكمة الجنايات الدولية.