Tuesday, September 16, 2014

ألقى الفلسطينيون السلاح فقتلوا صبرا وشاتيلا

الرسالة نت – خاص
مجزرة صبرا وشاتيلا
لو أن المقاومة بقيت في بيروت، لحافظت على وجودها وشعبها، لكن بين أداة الشرط وجوابه استغلت (إسرائيل) ذلك وقضت على أكثر من 3 آلاف لاجئ فلسطيني في أبشع مجازر التاريخ. إنها "صبرا وشاتيلا".
واقع الثمانينات ذاته استمر مع العام الرابع عشر بعد الألفين: مجازر، وقصف واجتياحات، ومفاوضات، ومساومة على الثوابت، لكن المواقف اختلفت وأصرّت المقاومة على التمسك بسلاحها.
لندير عجلة الزمان ونعود إلى قصة صبرا وشاتيلا التي وقعت 16 أيلول/سبتمبر عام 1982 واستمرت 3 أيام، على يد القوات الاسرائيلية والمجموعات الانعزالية اللبنانية المتمثلة بحزب الكتائب اللبناني، "جيش لحد".
حاصر الإسرائيليون المخيم ودخلت الكتائب بعد انسحاب المنظمة منه وفقدان القوة العسكرية. بدأت تنفيذ المجزرة بعيدا عن الإعلام، واستخدمت الأسلحة البيضاء وغيرها في قتل سكان المخيم العزل.
آنذاك. قتل أكثر من 3 آلاف فلسطيني على يد الجيش الإسرائيلي بقيادة أرئيل شارون ورفائيل إيتان، والقوات الانعزالية اللبنانية تحت إمرة المسؤول الكتائبي إيلي حبيقة.
شتان بين غزة وبيروت
بعد قصف القوات الإسرائيلية بيروت، اجتمع العرب في فاس وطرحوا مشروعًا للتسوية يتضمن الاعتراف بـحق (إسرائيل) في الأراضي الفلسطينية، وعندها وافقت منظمة التحرير على المشروع وبدأت المفاوضات من أجل إخراجها من بيروت.
ظلت (إسرائيل) تساندها الكتائب اللبنانية بقصف الفلسطينيين، وخلال هذه الظروف أعلن الرئيس ياسر عرفات الموافقة على قرارات الأمم المتحدة المتعلقة بفلسطين، وأبدى استعداده التخلي عن المقاومة، لكن (إسرائيل) لم تقبل واشترطت الخروج من بيروت.
وقتها وافقت المنظمة على الانسحاب بكل قواتها من بيروت، وظلت المخيمات الفلسطينية بلا مقاومة أو قوة عسكرية، فاستغلت (إسرائيل) الوضع واقتحمت مخيمي صبرا وشاتيلا، ووقت المجزرة الأبشع في تاريخ البشرية.
هو السيناريو يكرر ذاته بشقه الأول دون الثاني. (إسرائيل) تشترط اليوم نزع سلاح المقاومة في غزة مقابل الموافقة على شروط الفلسطينيين، لكن المقاومة بكل فصائلها ترفض مجرد نقاش الفكرة، فربما نعيش صبرا وشاتيلا جديدة.
في الحرب الأخيرة على غزة وقبلها اثنتين، أثبتت الفصائل الفلسطينية أن التمسك بالمقاومة المسلحة في وجه (إسرائيل) هو الطريق الوحيد لإنهاء الاحتلال، رغم أن المفاوضات وجدت نفسها، لكن الكلمة الأولى كانت للبندقية والميدان.
شهادات من شاتيلا
الشاعرة رحاب كنعان إحدى الناجيات من المجزرة، وبقيت شاهدة على تفاصيلها. تقول إن القوات المسلحة خرجت من المخيم بناءً على قرار الأمم المتحدة، ومع ذلك ظل في المخيم شباب فلسطينيي 48 بسلاح بسيط جدًا.
وتضيف كنعان لـ "الرسالة نت": "السلاح متواضع جدًا لا يُقارن بالقوة الإسرائيلية، لكن إرادة الشباب ظلت موجودة في مواجهة الإسرائيليين"، مشيرةً إلى أن الجيش اقتحم المخيم من الأطراف ولم يستطع الدخول إليه بسبب مقاومة الشباب.
وتؤكد أن اقتحام القوات الإسرائيلية وارتكاب المجزرة كان مخططًا له، وتستدل على ذلك بالترتيب الزمني "في 13/9 غادرت القوات، بعدها بيوم جرى اغتيال الرئيس بشير الجميّل، ثم في اليوم التالي دخلت القوات الإسرائيلية بيروت".
شهيرة ابو ردينة ناجية أخرى من المجزرة تروي تفاصيل الحكاية الغائبة الحاضرة: " كنا في الغرفة الداخلية نختبئ من القصف لأنها أكثر أمانا وبعيدة عن الشارع الرئيسي حيث جرت المجزرة الأساسية. كنا كثرًا في المنزل".
شهيرة التي ترفض التكلم عن المجزرة عادة، خالفت عادتها هذه المرة وتكملت: "بقينا فيه حتى الصباح. كنا نسمع أثناء الليل صراخا وإطلاق رصاص. عرفنا حينها أنهم يقتلون الناس. كانوا يتراكضون في الازقة القريبة من بيتنا، فلم نجرؤ على الخروج. عند الفجر، خرجت أختي لتتفقد الحي وترى ماذا يجري".
ما إن خرجت شقيقة شهيرة حتى صرخت "بابا" بصوت وُصِف بالمرعب وجرى بعدها إطلاق نار كثيف. استجاب الوالد لندائها فخرج فقتل أيضا. لاحقًا، وجدت جثة أخت شهيرة (17 عامًا) مربوطة إلى النافذة وكانت منتفخة جدًا.
كل العائلة قُتلت. "زوجي، أخي، ابن عمي، والدي، جميعهم قتلوا". تقول شهيرة وتتابع: "جاؤوا صباحا وأخرجونا من البيت، وضعوا الرجال امام الحائط وانقضوا عليهم بالبلطات. انهمر عليهم الرصاص كالمطر ثم اقتادونا الى الشارع الرئيسي وكنا نساء وأطفالا فقط. وضعونا امام الحائط".
تنهي شهيرة شهادتها المختصرة: "سمعتُ واحدًا يتحدث العبرية. يبدو أنه إسرائيلي. لم نفهم ماذا كان يقول، لكنهم (قوات الكتائب) فهموا وتوقفوا عن قتلنا بعدما تحدثوا معه بالعبرية". اصطحبت القوات اللبنانية والجيش الإسرائيلي شهيرة ومن معها إلى المدينة الرياضية، وحبسوهم هناك.
قتل بلا هوادة
ودخلت 3 فرق إلى المخيم كل منها يتكون من 50 مسلح، بحجة وجود 1500 مسلح، وأطبقت المجموعات المارونية اللبنانية على سكان المخيم وأخذوا يقتلون المدنيين بلا هوادة.
تقول ناجية ثالثة من المجزرة إن أطفالا في سن الثالثة والرابعة وُجدوا غرقى في دمائهم، ونساء حوامل تم بقر بطونهن، ونساء تم اغتصابهن قبل قتلهن، إضافة إلى رجال وشيوخ ذُبحوا وقُتلوا.
وتضيف أن كل من حاول الهرب كان القتل مصيره، حيث كانت المجزرة 48 ساعة وسماء المخيم مغطاة بنيران القنابل المضيئة.
بعد ذلك، أحكمت القوات الإسرائيلية إغلاقَ مداخل النجاة إلى المخيم. لم يُسمح للصحفيين ولا وكالات الأنباء بالدخول إلا بعد انتهاء المجزرة. حينما استفاق العالم على مذبحة من أبشع المذابح في تاريخ البشرية.
وتقول رواية حول عدد القتلى في المذبحة إن الحصيلة لم تُحدد بوضوح، وتتراوح التقديرات حوالي 4000 شهيد من الرجال والأطفال والنساء والشيوخ المدنيين العزل.

Monday, September 15, 2014

Convenient genocide: Another failed war to re-arrange the Middle East

By Ramzy Baroud

If the US war on Iraq and Afghanistan failed to achieve any long term political objectives, Obama’s chances of success now are close to nil
A few months ago, not many Americans, in fact Europeans as well, knew that a Yazidi sect in fact existed in northwest Iraq. Even in the Middle East itself, the Yazidis and their way of life have been an enigma, shrouded by mystery and mostly grasped through stereotypes and fictitious evidence. Yet in no time, the fate of the Yazidis became a rally cry for another US-led Iraq military campaign.
It was not a surprise that the small Iraqi minority found itself a target for fanatical Islamic State (IS) militants, who had reportedly carried out unspeakable crimes against Yazidis, driving them to Dohuk, Irbil and other northern Iraqi regions. According to UN and other groups, 40,000 Yazidi had been stranded on Mount Sinjar, awaiting imminent “genocide” if the US and other powers didn’t take action to save them.
The rest of the story was spun from that point on, as the Yazidis - whose very existence was rarely acknowledged in most international media - became a rally cry for US-western intervention in Iraq. The logic for intervention that preceded the latest US bombing campaign of IS targets, which started in mid-June, is similar to what took place in Libya over three years ago. Early 2011, imminent “genocide” awaiting Libya’s eastern city of Benghazi at the hands of Muammar Gaddafi was the rally cry that mobilised western powers to a war that wrought wanton killings and destruction in Libya. Since NATO’s intervention in Libya, which killed and wounded tens of thousands, the country has fallen prey to an endless and ruthless fight involving numerous militias, armed, and financially and politically-backed by various regional and international powers. Libya is now ruled by two governments, two parliaments, and a thousand militia.
When US special forces arrived to the top of Mount Sinjar, they realized that the Yazidis had either been rescued by Kurdish militias, or were already living there. They found less than 5,000 Yazidis there, half of them refugees. The mountain is revered in local legend, as the final resting place of Noah’s ark. It was also the final resting place for the Yazidi genocide story. The finding hardly received much coverage in the media, which used the original claim to create fervour in anticipation for Western intervention in Iraq.
We all know how the first intervention worked out. Not that IS’ brutal tactics in eastern, northern and central Iraq should be tolerated. But a true act of genocide had already taken place in Iraq for nearly two decades, starting with the US war in 1990-91, a decade-long embargo and a most destructive war and occupation starting in 2003. Not once did a major newspaper editorial in the US bestow the term “genocide” on the killing and maiming of millions of Iraqis. In fact, the IS campaign is actually  part of a larger Sunni rebellion in Iraq, in response to the US war and Shite-led government oppression over the course of years. That context is hardly relevant in the selective reporting on the current violence in Iraq.
It goes without saying, US policymakers care little for the Yazidis, for they don’t serve US interests in any way. However, experience has taught that such groups only become relevant in a specially tailored narrative, in a specific point in time, to be exploited for political and strategic objectives. They will cease to exist the moment the objective is met. Consider for example, the fact that IS has been committing horrific war crimes in western and northern Syria for years, as did forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad and militants belonging to the various opposition groups there. Hundreds of thousands of Syrians have been killed and wounded. Various minority groups there faced and continue to face genocide. Yet, somehow, the horrifying bloodshed there was not only tolerated, but in fact encouraged.  
For over three years, little effort was put forward to find or impose a fair political solution to the Syria civil war. The Syrians were killing each other and thousands of foreigners, thanks to apurposely porous Turkish borders were allowed to join in, in a perpetual “Guernica” that, with time, grew to become another Middle Eastern status quo. In fact, all of us are guilty in permitting the Syrian genocide to perpetuate with all of its barbarity and gruesomeness to this day. It is as if we learned to co-exist with some acts of genocide, but not others. Many fortified themselves behind a mountain of self-tailored evidence that one party was committing all the crimes, and the others and their supporters were, in fact, innocent or in a state of self-defence.
Weren’t the massacres of Aleppo in fact genocide? The siege of Yarmouk? The wiping out of entire villages, the beheading and dismembering of people for belonging to the wrong sect or religion?
Even if they were, it definitely was not the kind of genocide that would propel action, specifically western-led action. In recent days, as it was becoming clear that the US was up to its old interventionist games, countries were being lined up to fight IS. US Secretary of State John Kerry was shuttling the globe once more, from US to Europe, to Turkey, to Iraq to Saudi Arabia, and still going. "We believe we can take on ISIL (previous name for IS) in the current coalition that we have," he said. But why now?
The French are also keen on fighting IS. After all, France was one of the two main parties in the Asia Minor (Sykes-Picot) Agreement in 1916, which divided Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire between France and Britain. Major wars and upheavals didn’t alter the old colonial borders imposed on the Arabs since then, as much as the IS, whose numbers are being artfully overstated from 10 thousand up to 31 thousand, according to the CIA. Francois Hollande flew to Baghdad in a reported show of support for Iraq’s new government. In actuality, he was there, ahead of a Paris conference on Iraq, to show a united western front, and that the Obama administration was not alone in this war. France, of course, has its own calculations in Syria and Lebanon, and will find the right moment to cease in its support of the US war.
In his speech on the eve of the 13th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, Obama declared war on IS. Obama’s tangled foreign policy agenda became even more confused in his 13-minute speech from the White House. He promised to “hunt down” IS fighters “whenever they are” until the US ultimately destroys the group, as supposedly, it has down with al-Qaeda. IS, of course, is a splinter al-Qaeda group, which began as an idea, and thanks to the US global “war on terror”, has morphed into an army of many branches. The US never destroyed al-Qaeda; but it inadvertently allowed the creation of IS.
"That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven," Obama said. Of course, he needed to say that, as his Republican rivals have accused him of lack of decisiveness and his presidency of being weak. His democratic party could possibly lose control over the Senate come the November elections. His fight against IS is meant to help rebrand the president as resolute and decisive, and perhaps create some distraction from economic woes at home. Obama is using the same language that his predecessor, George W. Bush used, and is appealing to the same fear and trepidation of the foreign menace created by the media and fed to the US public for many years.
That same media has also cleverly devalued and branded conflicts, and acts of genocide in ways consistent with US foreign policy agendas. While the Yazidis were purportedly stranded on mount Sinjar, Israel was carrying out a genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Over 2,150 were killed, mostly civilians, hundreds of them children, and over 11,000 wounded, the vast majority of whom were civilians. Not an alleged 40,000 but a confirmed 520,000 thousandwere on the run, and along with the rest of Gaza’s 1.8 million, were entrapped in an open-air prison with no escape. But that was not an act of genocide either, as far as the US-western governments and media were concerned. Worse, they actively defended, and, especially in the case of the US, UK, France and Italy, armed and funded the Israeli aggression. Just as the Israeli army was running out of badly needed ammunition to carry out its war crimes, the US was quick to ship more weapons to Israel. Thanks to US aid and backing, the Gaza genocide was finalised to perfection.
Experience has taught us that not all “acts of genocide” are created equal: Some are fabricated, and others are exaggerated. Some are useful to start wars, and others, no matter how atrocious, are not worth mentioning. Some acts of genocide are branded as wars to liberate, free and democratize. In that case, body count is not important. Other acts of genocide are to be encouraged, defended and financed.
But as far as the US involvement in the Middle East is concerned, the only real genocide is the one that serves the interests of the west, by offering an opportunity for military intervention, followed by political and strategic meddling to re-arrange the region. The first Bush Administration tried but failed, the second Bush Administration flirted with the “New Middle East” idea and also failed, and now, Obama.
The US experience in Iraq also taught us that its effort will only succeed in exacerbating an already difficult situation, yielding yet more disenfranchised groups, political despair and greater violence. If the US war on Iraq and Afghanistan failed so miserably to achieve any long term political objectives, despite the trillions of dollars spent there and the hundreds of thousands of lives taken, Obama’s chances of success now are close to nil.
- Ramzy Baroud is a PhD scholar in People's History at the University of Exeter. He is the Managing Editor of Middle East Eye. Baroud is an internationally-syndicated columnist, a media consultant, an author and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story (Pluto Press, London).

Sacrificing the Vulnerable, From Gaza to America

  A Palestinian stands in the rubble of destroyed houses Aug. 1 in the heavily bombed town of Beit Hanoun, Gaza Strip, close to the Israeli border. AP/Lefteris Pitarakis
Chris Hedges gave this speech Saturday at the Sauk County Fairgrounds in Baraboo, Wis., before a crowd of about 2,000. His address followed one there by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who seems to be preparing to run in the Democratic presidential primaries. The Fighting Bob Fest, the annual event at which they appeared, brings together progressive speakers from around the country and honors Robert “Fighting Bob” La Follette (1855-1925), a U.S. senator from Wisconsin who opposed the United States’ entry into World War I. Parts of this talk were drawn from Hedges’ past columns.
I would like to begin by speaking about the people of Gaza. Their suffering is not an abstraction to me. I was the Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times. I spent seven years in the region. I speak Arabic. And for much of that time I was in Gaza, including when Israeli fighter jets and soldiers were attacking it.
I have stood over the bodies, including the bodies of children, left behind by Israeli airstrikes and assaults. I have watched mothers and fathers cradle their dead and bloodied boys and girls in their arms, convulsed by an indescribable grief, shrieking in pitiful cries to an indifferent universe.

And in this charnel house, this open-air prison where 1.8 million people, nearly half of them children, live trapped in an Israeli ghetto, I have witnessed the crimes of occupation—the food shortage, the stifling overcrowding, the contaminated water, the lack of health services, the crippling poverty, the endemic unemployment, the fear and the despair. As I have witnessed this mass of human suffering I have heard from the power elites in Jerusalem and Washington the lies told to justify state terror.
An impoverished, captive people that lack an army, a navy, an air force, mechanized units, drones, artillery and any semblance of command and control do not pose a threat to Israel. And Israel’s indiscriminate use of modern, industrial weapons to kill hundreds of innocents, wound thousands more and make tens of thousands of families homeless is not a war. It is state-sponsored terror and state-sponsored murder.
The abject failure by our political class to acknowledge this fact, a fact that to most of the rest of the world is obvious, exposes the awful banality of our political system, the cynical abandonment of the most vulnerable of the earth for campaign contributions. Money, after all, has replaced the vote.
The refusal to speak out for the people of Gaza is not tangential to our political life. The pathetic, Stalinist-like plebiscite in the [U.S.] Senate, where all 100 senators trotted out like AIPAC windup dolls to cheer on the Israeli bombing of homes, apartment blocks, schools—where hundreds of terrified families were taking shelter—water treatment plants, power stations, hospitals, and of course boys playing soccer on a beach, exposes the surrender of our political class to cash-rich lobbying groups and corporate power. The people of Gaza are expendable. They are poor. They are powerless. And they have no money. Just like the poor people of color in this country whose bodies, locked in cages, enrich the prison-industrial complex.
When you are willing to sacrifice the most vulnerable for political expediency it becomes easy, as Barack Obama and the Democratic Party have amply illustrated, to sacrifice all who are vulnerable—our own poor, workers, the sick, the elderly, students and our middle class. This is a Faustian compact. It ends by selling your soul to Goldman Sachs and ExxonMobil. It ends by deifying a military machine, now largely beyond civilian control, that, along with our organs of state security, has established surveillance and a security state that make us the most spied-upon, eavesdropped, monitored and photographed populace in human history. It is impossible to describe yourself as free when you are constantly watched. This is the relationship of a master and a slave.
Politics, if we take politics to mean the shaping and discussion of issues, concerns and laws that foster the common good, is no longer the business of our traditional political institutions. These institutions, including the two major political parties, the courts and the press, are not democratic. They are used to crush any vestiges of civic life that calls, as a traditional democracy does, on its citizens to share among all its members the benefits, sacrifices and risks of a nation. They offer only the facade of politics, along with elaborate, choreographed spectacles filled with skillfully manufactured emotion and devoid of real political content. We have devolved into what Alexis de Tocquevillefeared—“democratic despotism.”
The squabbles among the power elites, rampant militarism and the disease of imperialism, along with a mindless nationalism that characterizes all public debate, which Bob La Follette denounced and fought, have turned officially sanctioned politics into a carnival act.
Pundits and news celebrities on the airwaves engage in fevered speculation about whether the wife of a former president will run for office—and this after the mediocre son of another president spent eight years in the White House. This is not politics. It is gossip. Opinion polls, the staple of what serves as political reporting, are not politics. They are forms of social control. The use of billions of dollars to fund election campaigns and pay lobbyists to author legislation is not politics. It is legalized bribery. The insistence that austerity and economic rationality, rather than the welfare of the citizenry, be the primary concerns of the government is not politics. It is the death of civic virtue. The government’s system of wholesale surveillance and the militarization of police forces, along with the psychosis of permanent war and state-orchestrated fear of terrorism, are not politics. They are about eradicating civil liberties and justifying endless war and state violence. The chatter about death panels, abortion, gay rights, guns and undocumented children crossing the border is not politics. It is manipulation by the power elites of emotion, hate and fear to divert us from seeing our own powerlessness.

As long as most citizens believe in the ideas that justify global capitalism, the private and state institutions that serve our corporate masters are unassailable. When these ideas are shattered, the institutions that buttress the ruling class deflate and collapse. The battle of ideas is percolating below the surface. It is a battle the corporate state is steadily losing. An increasing number of Americans are getting it. They know that we have been stripped of political power. They recognize that we have been shorn of our most basic and cherished civil liberties. They know that nearly half the country lives in poverty or a category called “near poverty.” Many of the rest of us, if the corporate state is not overthrown, will join them. These truths are harder and harder to hide.
It appears that political ferment is dormant in the United States. This is incorrect. The ideas that sustain the corporate state are swiftly losing their efficacy across the political spectrum. The ideas that are rising to take their place, however, are inchoate. The right has retreated into Christian fascism and a celebration of the gun culture. The left, knocked off balance by decades of fierce state repression in the name of anti-communism, has yet to rebuild itself and turn on a feckless liberal class that has sold its soul to a bankrupt Democratic Party.
The tinder of revolt is piling up. No person or movement can ignite this tinder. No one knows when the eruption will take place. No one knows what form it will take. But it is certain that a popular revolt is coming. The refusal by the corporate state to address even the minimal grievances of the citizenry, the continued pillaging of the nation and the ecosystem, remind us that, as Karl Marx pointed out, unregulated, unfettered capitalism is a revolutionary force. It commodifies everything. Human beings and the natural world become commodities that are exploited until exhaustion or collapse. This is why the economic crisis is intimately twined with the environmental crisis. The corporate state—a system described by the political philosopher Sheldon Wolin as “inverted totalitarianism”—is incapable of a rational response to the crisis. A rational response, especially after your uprising in Madison and the Occupy movement, would at a minimum include a moratorium on all foreclosures and bank repossessions, a forgiveness of student debt, universal health care for all and a massive jobs program, especially targeted at those under the age of 25. But the corporate state, by mounting a coordinated federal effort led by Barack Obama to shut down the Occupy encampments, illustrated that the only language it will speak is the language of force.
Revolutions, when they erupt, appear to the elites and the establishment to be sudden and unexpected. This is because the real work of revolutionary ferment and consciousness is unseen by the mainstream society, noticed only after it has largely been completed. Throughout history, those who have sought radical change have always had to first discredit the ideas used to prop up ruling elites and construct alternative ideas for society, which [today] means the articulation of a viable socialism as an alternative to corporate tyranny.
By the time ruling elites are openly defied, there has already been a nearly total loss of faith in the ideas—in our case free market capitalism and globalization—that sustain the structures of the ruling elites. And once enough people get it, a process that can take years, “the slow, quiet, and peaceful social evolution becomes quick, militant, and violent,” as Alexander Berkman wrote. “Evolution becomes revolution.”
This is where we are headed. I do not say this because I am a supporter of revolution. I am not. I prefer the piecemeal and incremental reforms of a functioning democracy. I prefer a system in which our social institutions permit the citizenry to nonviolently dismiss those in authority. I prefer a system in which institutions are independent and not captive to corporate power. But we do not live in such a system. Revolt is the only option left. Ruling elites, once the ideas that justify their existence are dead, resort to force. It is their final clutch at power. If a nonviolent popular movement is able to ideologically disarm the bureaucrats, civil servants and police—to get them, in essence, to defect—nonviolent revolution is possible. But if the state can organize effective and prolonged violence against dissent, it spawns reactive revolutionary violence, or what the state calls terrorism. And our backlash, if we on the left do not regain the militancy of the old anarchists and socialists, could be a right-wing backlash, a species of Christian fascism.
The people in Gaza deserve to be free. So do we. But do not look to our political mandarins for help, or expect anything but vaudevillian smoke and mirrors from the billions poured into our campaign circus.
Look within.
We too are powerless. We have undergone a corporate coup d’état in slow motion. It is over. They have won. If we want to wrest power back, to make the consent of the governed more than an empty cliché, we will have to mobilize, to carry out sustained acts of civil disobedience to overthrow—let me repeat that word for the members of Homeland Security who may be visiting us this afternoon—overthrow the corporate state. And maybe, once we have freed ourselves, we can free the people of Gaza.

Carlos Latuff: Please, RT! @BarackObama redrawing Middle East, via @operamundi #ISIS

Obama Redrawing Middle East ISIS ISIL 2

Egyptian activist Alaa Abd El Fattah is given bail

Blogger granted retrial last month on charges of organising unauthorised protest is to leave jail along with two other activists
  • theguardian.com, 
Alaa Abd El Fattah
Egyptian blogger Alaa Abd El Fattah with his son, Khaled, mother Laila Seif, right, and sister Ahdaf Seif in 2011. Photograph: Amr Hafez/AP
Egypt's most prominent activist, who is facing a retrial on a 15-year prison sentence for violating the country's draconian protest law, has been granted release on bail.
Lawyer Mohammed Abdel-Aziz said Alaa Abd El Fattah – a blogger and vocal government critic since mid-2000 – had been released on bail of 5,000 Egyptian pounds (£430) along with two other activists. Abdel-Aziz said Abd El Fattah and his two fellow defendants should walk out of prison on Tuesday once paperwork has been completed.
He added that the judge presiding over the retrial had stepped down at the request of defence lawyers. "The judge said in his reasons for stepping down that it was prompted by a show of disrespect to court," Abdel-Aziz added.
Last week, during the latest court session, Egyptian prosecutors presented a home video of Abd El Fattah's wife dancing as evidence against him, prompting an outcry from his lawyers that the material was irrelevant and defamatory.
Most of the evidence presented consisted of video clips from private TV stations showing various protests and police chasing unidentified civilians, although no scenes or footage of Abd El Fattah or any other defendant in the case were shown.
Abd El Fattah's sentence was the harshest given to secular activists amid an ongoing government crackdown on Islamists. He was granted a retrial last month on charges of organising an unauthorised protest, beating a police officer and stealing his walkie-talkie last November.
The clampdown on dissent surged in autumn 2013 after the military ousting of Islamist president Mohammed Morsi following demonstrations urging his resignation. Morsi's supporters staged mass rallies and sit-ins in Cairo, which the authorities cleared, leaving thousands dead and tens of thousands jailed. A subsequent anti-protest law made any unauthorised demonstration a criminal offence and has been used to suppress both Islamist and secular activists.
Abd El Fattah has been arrested several times including under longtime autocrat Hosni Mubarak. He comes from one of Egypt's most prominent activist families – his sister Sanaa is also in jail for violating the same law and his father, Ahmed Seif, who died in August, was a human rights activist who was repeatedly jailed under Mubarak

"داعش".. أو إله الثورة المضادة!

وائل قنديل
"داعش".. أو إله الثورة المضادة!
بمعيار ما، يمكن اعتبار "داعش" اسماً لمسحوق الغسيل المفضل لدى جمهور الثورات المضادة، وأنظمة الاستبداد العربية.

هو الحل السحري المطلوب لدى عموم الكارهين الألداء لموجة ثورات "الربيع العربي" في المشرق والمغرب، فقد وجدوا فيه ضالتهم لكي "يقاوموا الإرهاب وينتقموا من الثورات" على طريقة اليهودي العتيد "كوهين ينعى ولده ويصلح الساعات".

إن الاستثمار ذا العوائد الكبيرة في مشروع "الحرب على داعش" تجاوز مسألة غسيل الأيدي من الدماء، وغسيل السمعة من القتل، وغسيل التاريخ من المجازر، وإسقاط الديون والجرائم.. تجاوز ذلك إلى محاولة الحصول على أرباح إضافية، تتمثل في مواراة ما تبقى من ملامح للربيع العربي الثرى، تحت سنابك هذه الحملة "التترية" الصاخبة التي تستبق الحرب بإعلان انتصارها على "العدو" قبل أن يبدأ القتال، لا بل قبل أن توضع خطة واضحة الأهداف والوسائل لهذه"الحرب لمجرد الحرب".

خذ عندك إقدام النظام في القاهرة على توقيع اتفاقية أمنية مع الحكومة الليبية تسبغ شرعية على التدخل العسكري المصري، دعما لمحاولة انقلاب الجنرال حفتر، والتي تدور أحداثها منذ عدة أشهر، فليس ثمة مصادفة أن توقّع هذه الاتفاقية قبيل وصول جون كيري إلى مصر في إطار "جولة دفع مقدمات الأثمان" للأطراف الأكثر حماسا لركوب قطار الحرب ضد تنظيم الدولة.. وبعد إبرام الاتفاقية مباشرة، تصدر التصريحات الأميركية/ المصرية معلنة رفض التدخل الأجنبي في المسألة الليبية.. أي يبقى حسم الأمر في عهدة الحكومة الليبية، مدعومة باتفاقية شراكة أمنية مع مصر، ومن ثم لن يقول أحد إن الحضور العسكري المصري نوع من التدخل الأجنبي.

أما عن زيارة جون كيري وزير الخارجية الأميركي إلى القاهرة، فقد دفعت مقدماً مكافأة رمزية لسلطة الانقلاب المصرية، إذ اختزلت قصة 14 شهرا من المذابح والمجازر والممارسات التي تقترب من الفصل العنصري، إلى مجرد أزمة بسيطة في حرية التعبير، فضلا عن إعادة رسم حدود الدور المصري، وفقا لخرائط نظام مبارك "شريك أساسي في مواجهة الإرهاب".

وبالطبع لم تفوّت الإدارة المصرية الفرصة، فعمدت إلى توسعة مفهوم "الحرب على الإرهاب" ليتعدى حالة داعش، وينسحب على قوى وحركات أخرى في المنطقة، لم يسمّها وزير الخارجية المصري، غير أن صديقه رئيس الوزراء الصهيوني بنيامين نتنياهو، كان قد استبقه في تسمية "حماس".

أعلم أن الإدارة الأميركية لم تعلن موافقتها على هذه "الإجراءات التوسعية" الصادرة من أنظمة تتفوق على "داعش" في ممارسات إرهاب الدولة، غير أنها لا تملك الرغبة، وربما القدرة أيضا، في مواجهة هذه الأشواق الانتقامية من تحالفات أخرى نشأت على هامش، بل في القلب، من التحالف الدولي للحرب على الإرهاب، قوامها سلطات الانقلابات والثورات المضادة والاحتلال.

وكان لافتا كذلك هذه الزيادة الجنونية في معدلات إشعال الحرائق فيما تبقى من آثار لثورة يناير المصرية، مع تصاعد الحديث عن العد التنازلي لبدء الحرب على "داعش" إذ يبدو أن المزاج الانقلابي المصري يريد أيضا أن يضع "ثورة 25 يناير" على لائحة الحركات الإرهابية المتطرفة في المنطقة، حيث يتدحرج الاتهام من "توك شوز" فضائيات الثورة المضادة، ليتلقفه النائب العام ويفتح التحقيقات فورا في اتهامات تطال كل الحركات التي شاركت في الثورة.

وإذا مضت الأمور على هذا النحو المغرق في عبثيته، وتحقق ما يريده "تحالف الثورات المضادة" المنبثق من التحالف الدولي ضد "داعش" فليس مستبعدا أن يكتب التاريخ عن "داعش" أنه "إله الثورات المضادة" عند المصريين الجدد.
-

Current Al-Jazeera (Arabic) Online Poll


Do you support the participation of Arab countries in the international coalition against the Islamic State organization?

So far, 86% have voted no.

Sunday, September 14, 2014

Ahmed Seif and Egypt's prison generation

Mark LeVine

Mark LeVine is a professor of Middle Eastern History at University of California, Irvine, and a Distinguished Visiting Professor at Lund University. His new book is One Land, Two States: Israel and Palestine as Parallel States, co-edited with Ambassador Mathias Mossberg.

Egypt's human rights community is one of the most important in the Arab world, writes LeVine [AP]

Young people who organised Tahrir were the revolution's public face, but their parents' generation set the stage.


There is so much tragedy in the Arab world these days. Activists tortured to death in Moroccan jails, Libya imploding, Egypt returned to quasi-pharaonic rule, Gaza in rubble, Syria and Iraq in a twilight zone of barbarity. But while Egypt has not seen the same level of bloodshed as other countries in the region, the tragedy is, from one perspective, greater precisely because of the extent of its descent from the historic achievement of removing Hosni Mubarak from power and moving, however haltingly, towards real democratic reforms in the first two years after his departure.
Nothing reflects the disastrous situation in Egypt now better than the plight of the country's human rights organisations, over which the government is again trying to exert full control through obligatory government registration. It's impossible to overstate the importance of the human rights community for enabling the #Jan25 revolution. If the revolution was about dignity, that understanding and guarantee of dignity has always depended on the implementation of a universal and inclusive human rights agenda.
Egypt's human rights community is one of the most important in the Arab world, and along with Palestine and Tunisia, among the region's first. As human rights pioneer Fateh Azzam explained to me, if Palestinians were isolated by the Israeli occupation and Tunisians severely limited by the "domestic occupation" of Ben Ali's regime, Egyptian human rights groups had the possibility and ability to take the lead in promoting a regional movement for human rights as well as making human rights discourses an important part of the domestic political vocabulary.
Unsung heroes
Indeed, beginning in the 1980s, Egyptian human rights organisations were the unsung heroes of the struggle for democracy and greater rights. Using a law-based approach that could rise above narrowly ideological and/or partisan politics, they defended the rights of most marginalised groups - fellahin and workers, women and Islamists, communists and Nasserists, homosexuals and children. The human rights community did more than most actors to pry open the spaces out of which a vibrant civil society emerged in the 1990s, a fraught time in which the Mubarak government was simultaneously tackling a violent terrorist insurgency, imposing a neoliberal economic programme, and dealing with the collapse of what remained of the Nasser-era authoritarian bargain.
The human rights community did more than most actors to pry open the spaces out of which a vibrant civil society emerged in the 1990s, a fraught time in which the Mubarak government was simultaneously tackling a violent terrorist insurgency, imposing a neoliberal economic programme, and dealing with the collapse of what remained of the Nasser-era authoritarian bargain.

Moreover, their work helped create a basis for heretofore separate and even competing movements to see each other as all having the same fundamental rights.
"Our greatest accomplishment is that [today] rights issues are part of the domestic agenda, and in the state, in their discourse, in academic research, in the media, and the legal profession. We managed to create a social consensus against torture. That didn't exist 10 years ago," one long-term human rights activist explained.
That activist was Ahmed Seif al-Islam, cofounder of the Hisham Mubarak Law Center. Seif died after a long illness on August 28, having almost tasted victory during the heady days of February 2011, but ultimately dying with two of his three children imprisoned for engaging in the same struggles that saw him jailed more than a generation ago.
Seif's son, the well-known blogger and social media pioneer Alaa Abdel Fattah, is spending his third term in prison, this time with a 15-year sentence, in the same prison as his father. He has been on a hunger strike to protest his detention and treatment since August 18. Seif's daughter, Sanaa, has spent the last three months in jail awaiting trial on charges of participating in an illegal protest, when she marched in support of freedom for her brother and other jailed activists.
More than most, Seif helped to inculcate a discourse of fundamental rights that all Egyptians should enjoy, regardless of their religious, political or social identities. During a press conference Seif held in January protesting his son's reincarceration, Seif exclaimed, "I wanted you to inherit a democratic society that guards your rights, my son, but instead, I passed on the prison cell that held me, and now holds you."
Uprising against Egypt's 'cancer'
Having been tortured himself, Ahmed Seif understood that perhaps the defining issue facing Egyptians was torture, the experience that motivated him to help found the Hisham Mubarak Center.
"Torture is like a cancer that eats up the nation's youth and its ability to change, rebel, and criticise. Hence I decided that this is my domain."
One of the most difficult parts of working with activists in the Arab world is the reality of torture. Except in times of insurrection or civil war, regimes can't murder citizens by the thousands, but it can torture them by the tens of thousands. The research and publications of groups such as Hisham Mubarak and the El Nadim Center for the Management and Rehabilitation of Victims of Violence offer truly horrific portraits of life under a ruthlessly deep state, which continued to exert violent control over Egypt's political landscape during Mubarak's time, and then through the transitional and the Muslim Brotherhood periods that followed.
And during the revolution, there were few if any spaces outside Tahrir Square itself more important to the organisation of the revolution than the offices of the Hisham Mubarak Center in the old neighbourhood of Bab al-Luq. If you wanted to check the pulse of the protests and didn't want to brave the increasing crowds and layers of civil security to get into Tahrir, you could always head over to the centre and inevitably meet up with many of Egypt's most important pro-democracy activists.
The crucial organising role played by the centre - which was recognised in a backhanded sort of way when security forces raided it and arrested staff and visitors on February 3, 2011 , only a day after revolutionaries won Tahrir in the infamous Battle of the Camel - reminds us while the young people who occupied, defended and organised Tahrir were perhaps the public face of the revolution, their parents' generation of seasoned activists played an equally important role, using their decades of experience fighting the government to help provide a deeper strategic vision and connection with international networks.
Not surprisingly, when I finally caught up with Alaa on February 12 at a restaurant in Zamalek, his father was there too, surrounded by roughly two dozen young activists deep in discussion about the best way to keep the momentum going against a military that was refusing to yield power during the transition period.
From long experience battling the Mubarak regime (he directly confronted then head of military intelligence,Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, during two days of intense questioning after his arrest at the centre on February 3, 2011), Seif knew that even the most just claims would not bring real change to their society.
His children knew this equally well, which is why they both focused on direct anti-military activism (Alaa and Sanaa's sister Mona Seif was a cofounder of the Say No to Military Trials network), and particularly in Alaa's case were always working to develop new mechanisms for training the post-Tahrir generation of activists the kinds of technical and entrepreneurial skills that helped them survive from Mubarak to Sisi.
A legacy of fighters
While activist and journalist Sara Khorshid expressed bewilderment at "how making a great man suffer - by depriving him of the company of his son and daughter on his deathbed - could bring the country stability or bring its people anything good", I think it's pretty clear why the regime punished him right up to his last breath, and continues to take a hardline against his children.
Quite simply, with the imposition of the old/new order under Sisi, there is little room left to discipline what remains of the revolutionary movement. All that's left is punishment and spectacle.
Book publisher Sherif Boraie, another veteran of the Tahrir uprising and publisher of one of the most beautiful and powerful memorial books of the revolution, Wall Talk, best summed up Ahmed Seif's long-term impact on Egypt's still young revolutionary scene with the following tweet: "Ahmed Seif passed away in peace, bequeathing us many fine fighters - no guns just dignity, in a world gone mad."
Even as his children waste away in prison, Seif's and their example, like those of the countless others who've sacrificed their bodies and freedom in the fight for real democracy in Egypt, is helping the idea of revolutionary and systematic change seem just a little less mad in a country and a region increasingly devoid of hope.
Mark LeVine is a professor of Middle Eastern History at University of California, Irvine, and a Distinguished Visiting Professor at Lund University. His new book is One Land, Two States: Israel and Palestine as Parallel States, coedited with Ambassador Mathias Mossberg.

The PA undermines Palestinian liberation

Asa Winstanley
'Since its establishment the PA has always been a tool of Israeli occupation. It was set up as a way to pull the teeth of, and effectively neutralise, the Palestine Liberation Organisation'

Asa Winstanley 

Sunday, 14 September 2014 11:31


Al Jazeera this week revealed an explosive letter from the office of the top prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. In it, Fatou Bensouda recounted a meeting with Riad Malki, the Palestinian Authority's foreign minister.

On the very same day last month that he was making a show in front of the press of wanting to prosecute Israel at the ICC, Malki was behind closed doors, in that meeting with Bensouda, vetoing just such a move.
Under the terms of the Rome Statute, the founding document of the ICC, only the head of state (Mahmoud Abbas in this case) or the foreign minister (Malki) can authorise an ICC investigation in the territory of that state.
Although lower-level Palestinian Authority officials had, on 30 July, formally delivered a request to Bensouda for her office to investigate the latest bout of vicious Israeli war crimes in Gaza, the ICC's prosecutors still needed the go ahead from Malki or Abbas.
In the letter obtained by Al Jazeera, and published in full for the first time in my report on the issue for The Electronic Intifada Friday, Bensouda recounted that during her 5 August meeting with Malki, she "sought to confirm whether or not" that request had been officially "transmitted on behalf of the Palestinian Authority".
But Bensouda "did not receive a positive confirmation". In other words, Malki quietly scuppered the putative investigation into Israeli war crimes in Gaza.
Why is the Palestinian Authority so determined to protect Israel on the world stage?
Due to the fact that this entity has a need to be mindful of its own Palestinian constituency in the West Bank (despite the fact that it is unelected and totally unaccountable), the PA is often two-faced. Whereas the Israeli government is openly and loudly against moves to hold it accountable at UN bodies and in international courts, the PA will claim to be in favour. But as we have seen time and again, the PA will quietly act against such moves behind the scenes.
It previously held up moves to hold Israel accountable in the wake of the 2009 Goldstone Report – as revealed in the Palestine Papers. And as I discovered and wrote about in an investigate report in 2010, the PA acted decisively against the UN Human Rights Council condemning Israel for its May 2010 attack on the Mavi Marmara – a Turkish ship assaulted by Israeli soldiers off the coast of Gaza.
In the attack, Israel's thug soldiers murdered nine peace activists and injured many others – a tenth, who was shot in the head, died this past May after a four-year coma.
But the Palestinian Authority – as proven in PA and UN documents I obtained in 2010 – agreed to the removal of more critical wording from a UN Human Rights Council resolution. Wording that Turkey insisted should stay.
Time and again, we see this pattern repeated: the PA protects Israel. But why? Is it afraid of US or European reprisals? Large parts of the PA's budget does come from European aid after all.
The answer is fairly simple: since its establishment the PA has always been a tool of Israeli occupation. It was set up as a way to pull the teeth of, and effectively neutralise, the Palestine Liberation Organisation – which for a time was a genuine anti-colonial liberation movement, but is now an empty shell.
The PA's main role has always been simply to farm out the Israeli occupation. Israel remains in ultimate control of the small areas of the West Bank that the PA supposedly controls, but PA armed forces often play a usful role in shielding Israel soldiers from protest – blocking roads to prevent protesters from reaching Israeli military bases and settlements, for example.
On the diplomatic and legal fronts, the PA plays quite a similar role. Israel often comes in for criticism for its obstruction of the process of international law, and is regularly isolated on the world stage. But when such obstruction is the Palestinian Authority's doing, Israel can once again be shielded from criticism, as happened in this case.
Until the PA is dismantled, it will continue to protect Israel, and play a similar role in undermining the Palestinian liberation struggle that the leaders of the Bantustans played in apartheid-era South Africa.
An associate editor with The Electronic Intifada, Asa Winstanley is an investigative journalist who lives in London.

حديث الثورة- اتفاقية التعاون العسكري بين مصر وليبيا

اتفاقية بين مصر وحكومة طبرق تسمح بالتدخل العسكري


كشفت وثيقة مسربة تحرير اتفاقية تعاون عسكري وإستراتيجي بين الحكومة المصرية ووزارة الدفاع في حكومة طبرق الليبية التي يترأسها عبد الله الثني. وتسمح الاتفاقية 
للطرفين باستخدام المجال الجوي لكليهما لأغراض عسكرية وإرسال عسكريين على الأرض.
وتحمل الوثيقة عنوان "اتفاقية تعاون عسكري إستراتيجي مشترك بين مصر ودولة ليبيا"، التي يقصد بها جزء من البرلمان الليبي المجتمع في مدينة طبرق وحكومة عبد الله الثني التي يمثل اللواء المتقاعد خليفة حفتر ذراعها العسكري وتسيطر على أقل من 10% من الأراضي الليبية.
وحددت مدة الاتفاقية الصادرة بتاريخ الرابع من سبتمبر/أيلول الجاري بخمس سنوات قابلة للتجديد، وفتحت المجال لانضمام طرف ثالث يتوافق عليه الطرفان.
وتنص الاتفاقية على أن أي اعتداء أو تهديد يقع على أي منهما يعتبر اعتداء على الآخر، وتتخذ على أثره جميع التدابير بما في ذلك استخدام القوة المسلحة.
كما تنص على أن الطرفين يشتركان في تهيئة الوسائل الدفاعية لمقاومة أي اعتداء مسلح وعلى تشكيل لجنة عسكرية دائمة لتنفيذ الاتفاقية.
وبناء على الاتفاقية، يتعهد الطرفان بعدم إبرام أي اتفاق دولي أو دخول علاقات دولية تتنافى مع أغراض الاتفاقية.
وجاء في البند الخامس لملحق الاتفاقية أن التصريح بالمرور في المجال الجوي العسكري يتم بمجرد تقديم طلب لوزارة الخارجية، بينما تنفذ الطلعات في مسارات الطيران المدني والعسكري في جميع الأوقات على أن يتحمل الجانبان الكلفة المادية.
وأكد البند التاسع أنه لا يحق للطرف المستقبل (ليبيا) مقاضاة أي عسكري من الطرف المرسل (مصر) يرتكب جرما أو مخالفة، بل يعاد إلى بلده ليُحاكم فيها. ونص على تنازل الطرفين عن المطالبة بأي تعويضات عن إتلاف الممتلكات أو إصابة أشخاص أو وفاتهم.
ويأتي الكشف عن هذه الوثيقة في ظل أنباء على تدخل النظام المصري في الصراع الدائر في ليبيا، وهو ما تنفيه الحكومة المصرية.