Adala is an organization that defends the rights of Palestinians in Israel ('67 borders)
ADALAH PRESS RELEASE
14 March 2011
Adalah: Nakba Law Violates Rights of Arab Minority to Preserve its History and Culture
(Haifa, Israel) Today, 14 March 2011, the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee approved a bill popularly known as the "Nakba Law". In Adalah's view, the bill that was approved today is another link in a chain of laws that target Arab citizens of Israel and violate their rights to equality, dignity, history and culture and curtail their freedom of expression. Israel is a signatory to all international human rights conventions, according to which the state should undertake, inter alia, to preserve and protect the unique culture and history of the Arab national minority. This bill does just the opposite. The purpose of the bill is to prevent members of the Arab minority in Israel from exercising their democratic right to commemorate a seminal event in their history. This legislation will cause harm to cultural and educational institutions that teach about the Nakba by cutting their funding and will further entrench inequality and discrimination. The bill is both anti-democratic and discriminatory. If it is approved in the Knesset plenum, Adalah will petition the Supreme Court against it.
The bill would authorize the Minister of Finance to reduce funding or support provided by the state to an institution if it holds an activity that contradicts the definition of the State of Israel as a "Jewish and democratic" state, or that commemorates "Israel's Independence Day or the day on which the state was established as a day of mourning."
Prior to the Committee's decision, Adalah sent an urgent letter to its Chair, MK David Rotem, requesting that the Committee reject the bill. In the letter, Adalah Attorneys Orna Kohn and Sawsan Zaher argued that the bill threatens to cut funding to many institutions, including educational and cultural organizations, compromising their ability to provide important services to the public. These funding cuts are tantamount to the collective punishment of the public that receives these services, although such persons are unable to intervene in the decisions of these institutions over whether or not to conduct a certain activity.
Adalah stressed in the letter that the bill's approval would lead to major harm to the principle of equality and to the rights of Arab citizens to preserve their history and culture. Arab citizens of Israel are an indigenous minority living on its homeland, and their historical roots to this land run extremely deep, and thus their identity must be preserved.
The legislation also grossly violates the right to freedom of expression, one of the most important constitutional rights. If enacted, the law could be applied to an institution simply because it held a seminar or study day on a political issue that addresses the definition of the state, or that discusses the future vision of Arab citizens, for example, or a cultural organization that screened a film or held a play that discusses the Nakba. According to the bill, such activities are viewed as a threat to the existence of the State of Israel as a "Jewish and democratic" state.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Obama Does Not Get It
An Opinion Piece from the Al Jazeera website
If independent, democratic, governments are formed in the Middle East, they won't follow Washington's orders.
Lamis Andoni Last Modified: 09 Mar 2011 11:45 GMT
Barack Obama, the US president, has still not fully grasped the essence of the revolutions underway in the Arab world. He genuinely seems to believe that the people rallying for democracy in the region are making a pro-Western, if not pro-Israeli, statement.
"All the forces that we're seeing at work in Egypt are forces that naturally should be aligned with us, should be aligned with Israel - if we make good decisions now and we understand sort of the sweep of history," Obama recently told a group of Democrats in Florida.
I am not sure how Obama drew this conclusion, but he is either terribly misinformed or engaged in a serious bout of wishful thinking.
His statements, however, echo the assessments of many American pundits, some of whom have been celebrating the fact that anti-Israeli or American slogans have not dominated the recent and ongoing uprisings.
It is true that the protesters are not focusing on Israel.
But to say that these forces could be natural allies of Israel and the West is to take a huge leap into a highly inaccurate assessment of the situation. The US president is misreading the message of the protesting Arab masses.
Rewriting history
From Tunisia to Egypt to Bahrain, and in many places in between, protesters have been calling for free and accountable governments. Decades of bitter experience have shown them that unrepresentative governments are often willing to accept - or at the very least are unable to resist - subordination to Western, and particularly American, political and economic diktats.
The 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, for example, was not signed by a democratic Arab government but was reached in spite of the strong opposition – that persists until today – within the Arab world’s largest country. Likewise, it is unlikely that the 1978 Camp David Accords would have been signed if it were up to the Egyptian people who, undeterred by the alliance of consecutive Egyptian governments with Washington and their close ties to Tel Aviv, continued to resist all attempts to impose normalized relations with Israel.
Over the years, the Egyptian people have repeatedly shown – through demonstrations, their media and even their cinema – that they oppose US policies in the region and Israeli aggression towards the Palestinians.
But now some American analysts, officials and former officials are seeking to rewrite history - and possibly to convince themselves in the process - by claiming that popular animosity towards Israel was simply a product of the Mubarak regime’s efforts to deflect attention from its own vices.
Jackson Diehl, a Washington Post columnist, has even blamed the former Egyptian regime for deliberately keeping the peace with Israel cold and for sometimes challenging the US. "Imagine an Egypt that consistently opposes the West in international forums while relentlessly campaigning against Israel. A government that seeds its media with vile anti-Semitism, locks relations with Israel in a cold freeze and makes a habit of publicly rejecting "interference" in its affairs by the United States. A regime that allows Hamas to import tonnes of munitions and Iranian rockets into the Gaza Strip," Diehl wrote of the Mubarak regime in an article published on February 14.
Diehl seems to think that a democratic Egypt will be friendlier to the US and Israel than what he deemed to be an insufficiently cooperative dictatorship. The same idea has been presented by Condoleezza Rice, the former US secretary of state, who argued that Mubarak’s fear of the "Arab street" prevented him from fully endorsing US policies towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
But what Rice and others seem not to realize – despite the fact that their statements implicitly acknowledge it – is that Mubarak’s supposed shortcomings reflected his realization that he could go no further in his support of US policies without provoking popular anger.
Arab regimes have always sought to appease the opposition by paying lip service to the Palestinian cause, because they understand the place it holds in the Arab psyche. And while the revolutions have revealed that this tactic is no longer sufficient to keep the forces of opposition at bay, it is wrong to assume that the new Arab mood is somehow consistent with a friendlier posture towards a country that continues to occupy Palestinian land and to dispossess Palestinian people.
Defining democracy
This kind of misreading of the situation derives not from facts but from an Orientalist attitude that has long dominated American thinking and large sections of the American media.
In the prevailing US political culture, supporting Washington’s policies is considered synonymous with democratic thinking and behavior, while opposing the American outlook and Israel is judged to derive from the backwardness of 'captive minds'. According to this perspective, a mentality of imagined victimhood feeds ‘hatred’ of and resistance towards Israel.
But, it is, in fact, this thinking that is utterly undemocratic. If we assume that democratic values are universal values and move away from a Western ethno-centric interpretation, we will find that the rejection of occupation is totally consistent with ideas of freedom and human dignity – two supposedly integral components of democratic thought.
Just as rejecting racial discrimination asserts a belief in freedom, so does the refusal to simply accept the Israeli and American occupations of Arab lands and subordination of Arab people.
So unless Obama is talking about ending the US occupation of Iraq and the Israeli occupation of Palestine, why would he imagine that the Arab revolutionaries who rose against their oppressors would be natural allies of the US?
But some American officials and pundits are searching for any kind of interpretation that will enable them to divorce US support for the Israeli occupation from America’s relations with the Arab world. By claiming that the Palestinian issue is no longer central to Arab thinking, they imagine that the US can simply impose a 'solution' that ensures Israeli hegemony in the region and falls short of accepting the Palestinian people’s right to exercise self-determination.
Those in Washington and Tel Aviv who have sought to minimize the role of the Palestinian cause in Arab politics, would be well advised to read an article by the famous Egyptian blogger and activist Hossam el-Hamalawy in the Guardian, in which he argues that it was the demonstrations in solidarity with the Palestinian intifada in 2000 and the 2003 protests against the US war in Iraq that served as the precursors of the Egyptian revolution.
The delusion that movements against the injustice of dictatorship and the injustice of occupation will somehow contradict each other reflects a grave misinterpretation of the sentiments of the Arab masses - unless, of course, Obama is simply hoping to use this flawed reasoning to justify the continuation of equally flawed policies in the region.
Lamis Andoni is an analyst and commentator on Middle Eastern and Palestinian affairs.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
If independent, democratic, governments are formed in the Middle East, they won't follow Washington's orders.
Lamis Andoni Last Modified: 09 Mar 2011 11:45 GMT
Barack Obama, the US president, has still not fully grasped the essence of the revolutions underway in the Arab world. He genuinely seems to believe that the people rallying for democracy in the region are making a pro-Western, if not pro-Israeli, statement.
"All the forces that we're seeing at work in Egypt are forces that naturally should be aligned with us, should be aligned with Israel - if we make good decisions now and we understand sort of the sweep of history," Obama recently told a group of Democrats in Florida.
I am not sure how Obama drew this conclusion, but he is either terribly misinformed or engaged in a serious bout of wishful thinking.
His statements, however, echo the assessments of many American pundits, some of whom have been celebrating the fact that anti-Israeli or American slogans have not dominated the recent and ongoing uprisings.
It is true that the protesters are not focusing on Israel.
But to say that these forces could be natural allies of Israel and the West is to take a huge leap into a highly inaccurate assessment of the situation. The US president is misreading the message of the protesting Arab masses.
Rewriting history
From Tunisia to Egypt to Bahrain, and in many places in between, protesters have been calling for free and accountable governments. Decades of bitter experience have shown them that unrepresentative governments are often willing to accept - or at the very least are unable to resist - subordination to Western, and particularly American, political and economic diktats.
The 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, for example, was not signed by a democratic Arab government but was reached in spite of the strong opposition – that persists until today – within the Arab world’s largest country. Likewise, it is unlikely that the 1978 Camp David Accords would have been signed if it were up to the Egyptian people who, undeterred by the alliance of consecutive Egyptian governments with Washington and their close ties to Tel Aviv, continued to resist all attempts to impose normalized relations with Israel.
Over the years, the Egyptian people have repeatedly shown – through demonstrations, their media and even their cinema – that they oppose US policies in the region and Israeli aggression towards the Palestinians.
But now some American analysts, officials and former officials are seeking to rewrite history - and possibly to convince themselves in the process - by claiming that popular animosity towards Israel was simply a product of the Mubarak regime’s efforts to deflect attention from its own vices.
Jackson Diehl, a Washington Post columnist, has even blamed the former Egyptian regime for deliberately keeping the peace with Israel cold and for sometimes challenging the US. "Imagine an Egypt that consistently opposes the West in international forums while relentlessly campaigning against Israel. A government that seeds its media with vile anti-Semitism, locks relations with Israel in a cold freeze and makes a habit of publicly rejecting "interference" in its affairs by the United States. A regime that allows Hamas to import tonnes of munitions and Iranian rockets into the Gaza Strip," Diehl wrote of the Mubarak regime in an article published on February 14.
Diehl seems to think that a democratic Egypt will be friendlier to the US and Israel than what he deemed to be an insufficiently cooperative dictatorship. The same idea has been presented by Condoleezza Rice, the former US secretary of state, who argued that Mubarak’s fear of the "Arab street" prevented him from fully endorsing US policies towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
But what Rice and others seem not to realize – despite the fact that their statements implicitly acknowledge it – is that Mubarak’s supposed shortcomings reflected his realization that he could go no further in his support of US policies without provoking popular anger.
Arab regimes have always sought to appease the opposition by paying lip service to the Palestinian cause, because they understand the place it holds in the Arab psyche. And while the revolutions have revealed that this tactic is no longer sufficient to keep the forces of opposition at bay, it is wrong to assume that the new Arab mood is somehow consistent with a friendlier posture towards a country that continues to occupy Palestinian land and to dispossess Palestinian people.
Defining democracy
This kind of misreading of the situation derives not from facts but from an Orientalist attitude that has long dominated American thinking and large sections of the American media.
In the prevailing US political culture, supporting Washington’s policies is considered synonymous with democratic thinking and behavior, while opposing the American outlook and Israel is judged to derive from the backwardness of 'captive minds'. According to this perspective, a mentality of imagined victimhood feeds ‘hatred’ of and resistance towards Israel.
But, it is, in fact, this thinking that is utterly undemocratic. If we assume that democratic values are universal values and move away from a Western ethno-centric interpretation, we will find that the rejection of occupation is totally consistent with ideas of freedom and human dignity – two supposedly integral components of democratic thought.
Just as rejecting racial discrimination asserts a belief in freedom, so does the refusal to simply accept the Israeli and American occupations of Arab lands and subordination of Arab people.
So unless Obama is talking about ending the US occupation of Iraq and the Israeli occupation of Palestine, why would he imagine that the Arab revolutionaries who rose against their oppressors would be natural allies of the US?
But some American officials and pundits are searching for any kind of interpretation that will enable them to divorce US support for the Israeli occupation from America’s relations with the Arab world. By claiming that the Palestinian issue is no longer central to Arab thinking, they imagine that the US can simply impose a 'solution' that ensures Israeli hegemony in the region and falls short of accepting the Palestinian people’s right to exercise self-determination.
Those in Washington and Tel Aviv who have sought to minimize the role of the Palestinian cause in Arab politics, would be well advised to read an article by the famous Egyptian blogger and activist Hossam el-Hamalawy in the Guardian, in which he argues that it was the demonstrations in solidarity with the Palestinian intifada in 2000 and the 2003 protests against the US war in Iraq that served as the precursors of the Egyptian revolution.
The delusion that movements against the injustice of dictatorship and the injustice of occupation will somehow contradict each other reflects a grave misinterpretation of the sentiments of the Arab masses - unless, of course, Obama is simply hoping to use this flawed reasoning to justify the continuation of equally flawed policies in the region.
Lamis Andoni is an analyst and commentator on Middle Eastern and Palestinian affairs.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Deconstructing A News Report
--R. Congress
Here is the news item:
Army: Palestinian Kills 5 In West Bank Settlement
by The Associated Press
March 11, 2011
The Israeli military says a Palestinian has infiltrated a Jewish West Bank settlement and killed five people.
Israeli media is reporting that the dead are all members of the same family — parents and three children.
The military says it is sweeping the area in search of the perpetrator and has set up checkpoints throughout the West Bank.
The attack early Saturday in the northern West Bank settlement of Itamar is the first of its kind in years. It marks a rare outburst of violence during a relatively calm period.
Itamar is home to some of the West Bank's most fervent settlers. The attack took place in the middle of the night against a religious community on the Jewish Sabbath.
Here is the news story deconstructed:
1) Five members of one family living in a West Bank settlement (armed expansionist colony) are killed. This is bad. People should not be killed. The usual crowd (US Congressional Reps, AIPAC, ADL, Dershowitz, obese Jerry Nadler, et al) will be baying for a retaliation (say, blowing up a village or two) and talking heads will tsk, tsk about blood thirsty Arabs who can't get along with the "Jewish and Democratic state."
2) The legal protection of the "Jewish and Democratic state" exists for the 500,000 Israeli citizens who live in colonies in the West Bank, which is actually outside the internationally recognized borders of said state. However, the 2.5 million Palestinians who are in the West Bank live under Israeli military law.
3) Not mentioned in the AP story is the verifiable fact that about one Palestinian has been killed every other day for the last solid year by armed settlers and the Israeli Army.
4) The AP story calls the killings in Itmar "A rare outburst of violence during a relatively calm period." From this we learn that the definition of "a relatively calm period" is one in which scores of Palestinians are killed, hundreds are tear gassed and shot while engaging in peaceful protests against their land being stolen, and armed settlers systematically destroy orchards being cultivated by Palestinian farmers.
5) Calmness, we must conclude, prevails only when illegal settlers are free to attack Palestinian civilians, with no risk to there own wellbeing and serenity.
Here is the news item:
Army: Palestinian Kills 5 In West Bank Settlement
by The Associated Press
March 11, 2011
The Israeli military says a Palestinian has infiltrated a Jewish West Bank settlement and killed five people.
Israeli media is reporting that the dead are all members of the same family — parents and three children.
The military says it is sweeping the area in search of the perpetrator and has set up checkpoints throughout the West Bank.
The attack early Saturday in the northern West Bank settlement of Itamar is the first of its kind in years. It marks a rare outburst of violence during a relatively calm period.
Itamar is home to some of the West Bank's most fervent settlers. The attack took place in the middle of the night against a religious community on the Jewish Sabbath.
Here is the news story deconstructed:
1) Five members of one family living in a West Bank settlement (armed expansionist colony) are killed. This is bad. People should not be killed. The usual crowd (US Congressional Reps, AIPAC, ADL, Dershowitz, obese Jerry Nadler, et al) will be baying for a retaliation (say, blowing up a village or two) and talking heads will tsk, tsk about blood thirsty Arabs who can't get along with the "Jewish and Democratic state."
2) The legal protection of the "Jewish and Democratic state" exists for the 500,000 Israeli citizens who live in colonies in the West Bank, which is actually outside the internationally recognized borders of said state. However, the 2.5 million Palestinians who are in the West Bank live under Israeli military law.
3) Not mentioned in the AP story is the verifiable fact that about one Palestinian has been killed every other day for the last solid year by armed settlers and the Israeli Army.
4) The AP story calls the killings in Itmar "A rare outburst of violence during a relatively calm period." From this we learn that the definition of "a relatively calm period" is one in which scores of Palestinians are killed, hundreds are tear gassed and shot while engaging in peaceful protests against their land being stolen, and armed settlers systematically destroy orchards being cultivated by Palestinian farmers.
5) Calmness, we must conclude, prevails only when illegal settlers are free to attack Palestinian civilians, with no risk to there own wellbeing and serenity.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Qaddafi’s Scorched Earth Policy, at Home and Abroad
from Juan Cole's blog
Posted on 03/09/2011 by Juan Cole
Muammar Qaddafi is still trying to play the al-Qaeda card, arguing that his murderous regime is what stands between Europe and the emigration to it of thousands of Muslim extremists. He told Turkish television that his regime is a key element of stability in the Eastern Mediterranean, and its fall would bring chaos there, including to Israel.
So, who knew? Qaddafi is the guarantor of Israel’s security and that of Europe? It is a desperate attempt to induce caution with regard the growing move in the West toward some sort of military intervention to prevent Tripoli from massacring the rebels.
Interestingly, Qaddafi’s language seems calculated to appeal to the far right in Europe and Israel, which views all Muslims as potential terrorists. It is an attempt to build a Qaddafi-National Front-Likud-Peter King front against the democracy movement in the Middle East. Qaddafi also sent an envoy Wednesday to the military council that is running Egypt. Since the pro-rebel tribe Awlad Ali dominates Salloum, the Egyptian city on the Libyan border, the rebels presumably are getting some supplies from their Egyptian allies. Qaddafi is probably keen to cut them off. His fear-mongering about al-Qaeda might have some purchase with right wing officers such as Omar Suleiman.
Aljazeera Arabic points out that the rebel forces, far from being “al-Qaeda,” are mostly disgruntled youth from major Libyan tribes such as Zintan. The keywords preferred by statements from such tribes are secular ones– the nation, the people, the army. Muslim fundamentalists speak of the “umma” or the ‘community of believers’ when they talk about the nation, whereas those imbued with civil discourse use terms like the ‘watan’ (originally a translation of the French ‘patrie’ or fatherland), and speak of ‘the people’ (sha’b) rather than ‘the believers.’ It is this civil language that the rebels speak, in all the communiques I’ve seen.
Pro-Qaddafi forces are being accused by residents of Zawiya, an important oil town to the west of Tripoli, of pursuing a scorched earth policy in the city, according to the BBC. Some 50 tanks and 150 armored vehicles are said to be indiscriminately wreaking havoc on the infrastructure.
Aljazeera Arabic is showing scenes, nevertheless, of defiant, chanting crowds in Zawiya during the past two days, at times dispersed by live ammunition directed at them by Qaddafi’s men. It is reporting as of early morning Wednesday that there are still resistance fighters in the central square of the town, which has not been completely subdued by forces from Tripoli. It remains mysterious as to why such heavy armored forces are having such trouble taking the central square; presumably they are facing heavy rocket-propelled grenade fire; the rebels have shown that they can kill tanks that way. An interviewee from Zawiya says by telephone that there are no phone lines and there is no internet in the city, and residents cannot now get out.
CNN’s intrepid Ben Wedeman reports that western towns like Zuara are under rebel control and are helping Zawiya.
He also reports a major pro-Qaddaffi attack Wednesday aftwrnoon on Ras Lanuf.
Aljazeera Arabic is also reporting a major battle mid-day Wednesday at the gates of Ras Lanuf, including artillery duels, between rebels and pro-Qaddafi forces. Rebel forces continue to hold a position 20 km west of the town. On early Wednesday morning sounds of explosions and heavy fighting were audible in Ras Lanuf, continuing on and off subsequently. Presumably Qaddafi forces in the nearby town of Ben Jawad are also defending it from rebel attack. The rebel technique of continuing to advance on Ben Jawad and to threaten Qaddafi’s hometown of Sirt, i.e. of carrying the fight to the enemy, had probably blunted so far the ability of the pro-Qaddafi forces to attack effectively in Ras Lanuf, though it is subject to aerial bombardment. Aljazeera is showing film of a mosque in the city hit by an air raid, another piece of evidence pointing to a desperate, scorched-earth policy on Qaddafi’s part.
Posted on 03/09/2011 by Juan Cole
Muammar Qaddafi is still trying to play the al-Qaeda card, arguing that his murderous regime is what stands between Europe and the emigration to it of thousands of Muslim extremists. He told Turkish television that his regime is a key element of stability in the Eastern Mediterranean, and its fall would bring chaos there, including to Israel.
So, who knew? Qaddafi is the guarantor of Israel’s security and that of Europe? It is a desperate attempt to induce caution with regard the growing move in the West toward some sort of military intervention to prevent Tripoli from massacring the rebels.
Interestingly, Qaddafi’s language seems calculated to appeal to the far right in Europe and Israel, which views all Muslims as potential terrorists. It is an attempt to build a Qaddafi-National Front-Likud-Peter King front against the democracy movement in the Middle East. Qaddafi also sent an envoy Wednesday to the military council that is running Egypt. Since the pro-rebel tribe Awlad Ali dominates Salloum, the Egyptian city on the Libyan border, the rebels presumably are getting some supplies from their Egyptian allies. Qaddafi is probably keen to cut them off. His fear-mongering about al-Qaeda might have some purchase with right wing officers such as Omar Suleiman.
Aljazeera Arabic points out that the rebel forces, far from being “al-Qaeda,” are mostly disgruntled youth from major Libyan tribes such as Zintan. The keywords preferred by statements from such tribes are secular ones– the nation, the people, the army. Muslim fundamentalists speak of the “umma” or the ‘community of believers’ when they talk about the nation, whereas those imbued with civil discourse use terms like the ‘watan’ (originally a translation of the French ‘patrie’ or fatherland), and speak of ‘the people’ (sha’b) rather than ‘the believers.’ It is this civil language that the rebels speak, in all the communiques I’ve seen.
Pro-Qaddafi forces are being accused by residents of Zawiya, an important oil town to the west of Tripoli, of pursuing a scorched earth policy in the city, according to the BBC. Some 50 tanks and 150 armored vehicles are said to be indiscriminately wreaking havoc on the infrastructure.
Aljazeera Arabic is showing scenes, nevertheless, of defiant, chanting crowds in Zawiya during the past two days, at times dispersed by live ammunition directed at them by Qaddafi’s men. It is reporting as of early morning Wednesday that there are still resistance fighters in the central square of the town, which has not been completely subdued by forces from Tripoli. It remains mysterious as to why such heavy armored forces are having such trouble taking the central square; presumably they are facing heavy rocket-propelled grenade fire; the rebels have shown that they can kill tanks that way. An interviewee from Zawiya says by telephone that there are no phone lines and there is no internet in the city, and residents cannot now get out.
CNN’s intrepid Ben Wedeman reports that western towns like Zuara are under rebel control and are helping Zawiya.
He also reports a major pro-Qaddaffi attack Wednesday aftwrnoon on Ras Lanuf.
Aljazeera Arabic is also reporting a major battle mid-day Wednesday at the gates of Ras Lanuf, including artillery duels, between rebels and pro-Qaddafi forces. Rebel forces continue to hold a position 20 km west of the town. On early Wednesday morning sounds of explosions and heavy fighting were audible in Ras Lanuf, continuing on and off subsequently. Presumably Qaddafi forces in the nearby town of Ben Jawad are also defending it from rebel attack. The rebel technique of continuing to advance on Ben Jawad and to threaten Qaddafi’s hometown of Sirt, i.e. of carrying the fight to the enemy, had probably blunted so far the ability of the pro-Qaddafi forces to attack effectively in Ras Lanuf, though it is subject to aerial bombardment. Aljazeera is showing film of a mosque in the city hit by an air raid, another piece of evidence pointing to a desperate, scorched-earth policy on Qaddafi’s part.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Gadhafi compares himself (favorably) with Israel fighting Hamas in Gaza
Will Gadhafi's open identification with the West and Israel make some leftist dimwits understand that he is not on our side?
from Haaretz, Published 13:03 07.03.1
Latest update 13:03 07.03.11
Gadhafi: Crackdown on Libya revolt is like Israel's war on Hamas in Gaza
Speaking to France 24, long-time Libyan Leader says estimated figures of rebel, civilian casualties are exaggerated, adding that at most '150 to 200 people were killed.'
Long-time Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi said Monday in an interview with TV network France 24 that his violent crackdown on opposition protesters is akin to Israel's efforts to defend itself from extremism during its 2009 Gaza war against Hamas.
Libya has come under international scrutiny in recent weeks, in response to violent clashes between the Libyan military and anti-Gadhafi rebels, confrontations which caused what are estimated to be hundreds of deaths.
On Monday, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon dispatched a team to Tripoli to assess the humanitarian situation in the wake of the Libyan crisis, criticizing the Libya military's "disproportionate use of force."
Speaking with France 24 later Monday, however, Gadhafi defended his military's right to oppress rebel activity, comparing his crackdown to Israel's war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip in 2009, saying that "even the Israelis in Gaza, when they moved into the Gaza strip, they moved in with tanks to fight such extremists."
"It’s the same thing here! We have small armed groups who are fighting us. We did not use force from the outset… Armed units of the Libyan army have had to fight small armed al Qaida bands. That is what’s happened,” Gadhafi said.
Referring to the purported number of casualties in wake of fighting in Libya, the long-time leader claimed "there have been at most 150 to 200 people killed."
"People should come here and see how many people have been killed. They can come and check among the population, and among the police and the army," Gadhafi said.
Gadhafi also dismissed the assessment that recent events injured the Libya's links with the West, saying that the country had "very good relations with the United States, with the European Union and with African countries," adding that "Libya plays a crucial role in regional and world peace.”
The interview came as earlier Sunday, a top official in Gadhafi ruling establishment made an unprecedented appeal to dialogue between the warring factions, in attempt to end the conflict.
Jadallah Azous Al-Talhi, a Libyan prime minister in the 1980s who is originally from eastern Libya, appeared on state television reading an address to elders in Benghazi, the main base of the anti-Gadhafi rebels.
He asked them to "give a chance to national dialogue to resolve this crisis, to help stop the bloodshed, and not give a chance to foreigners to come and capture our country again."
More on this topic
from Haaretz, Published 13:03 07.03.1
Latest update 13:03 07.03.11
Gadhafi: Crackdown on Libya revolt is like Israel's war on Hamas in Gaza
Speaking to France 24, long-time Libyan Leader says estimated figures of rebel, civilian casualties are exaggerated, adding that at most '150 to 200 people were killed.'
Long-time Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi said Monday in an interview with TV network France 24 that his violent crackdown on opposition protesters is akin to Israel's efforts to defend itself from extremism during its 2009 Gaza war against Hamas.
Libya has come under international scrutiny in recent weeks, in response to violent clashes between the Libyan military and anti-Gadhafi rebels, confrontations which caused what are estimated to be hundreds of deaths.
On Monday, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon dispatched a team to Tripoli to assess the humanitarian situation in the wake of the Libyan crisis, criticizing the Libya military's "disproportionate use of force."
Speaking with France 24 later Monday, however, Gadhafi defended his military's right to oppress rebel activity, comparing his crackdown to Israel's war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip in 2009, saying that "even the Israelis in Gaza, when they moved into the Gaza strip, they moved in with tanks to fight such extremists."
"It’s the same thing here! We have small armed groups who are fighting us. We did not use force from the outset… Armed units of the Libyan army have had to fight small armed al Qaida bands. That is what’s happened,” Gadhafi said.
Referring to the purported number of casualties in wake of fighting in Libya, the long-time leader claimed "there have been at most 150 to 200 people killed."
"People should come here and see how many people have been killed. They can come and check among the population, and among the police and the army," Gadhafi said.
Gadhafi also dismissed the assessment that recent events injured the Libya's links with the West, saying that the country had "very good relations with the United States, with the European Union and with African countries," adding that "Libya plays a crucial role in regional and world peace.”
The interview came as earlier Sunday, a top official in Gadhafi ruling establishment made an unprecedented appeal to dialogue between the warring factions, in attempt to end the conflict.
Jadallah Azous Al-Talhi, a Libyan prime minister in the 1980s who is originally from eastern Libya, appeared on state television reading an address to elders in Benghazi, the main base of the anti-Gadhafi rebels.
He asked them to "give a chance to national dialogue to resolve this crisis, to help stop the bloodshed, and not give a chance to foreigners to come and capture our country again."
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Can Chavez & Castro tell imperialism from anti-imperialism?
IV Online magazine : IV434 - March 2011
Arab revolution/Libya
Latin America and the Arab revolution: the bankruptcy of Chavism?
Ataulfo Riera
In Europe, governments are trying to prevent contagion and solidarity
between European workers and the Arab masses in revolt by brandishing
the scarecrow of Islamism. In Latin America, it is the Venezuelan and
Cuban progressive leaders themselves who are trying to isolate these
rising revolutions by affirming the supposedly “anti-imperialist”
character of the despotic Libyan, Syrian and Iranian regimes, which
are also being destabilized by the rising wave of peoples in struggle.
The Arab revolution constitutes a litmus test for imperialism, but
also for the Cuban and Chavist leaderships. However, if the latter
were also were completely taken by surprise by the upsurge of the Arab
masses, they seem at present to be still unable to grasp the nature,
the depth and the unity of the revolutionary process that is underway
in the entire region. They do not seem to understand at all the
powerful thirst for real democracy, for social justice, for
independence and sovereignty which motivate the Arab masses and the
formidable opportunity that their struggles offer to profoundly modify
the relationships of forces between capital and labour on a world
scale, and with imperialism.
The attitude of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez concerning the events in
Libya is particularly shocking. In a manner that is less pronounced in
the case of the first and pretty consistent in the case of the second,
they imply that the revolt of the Libyan people is the result of
manipulation, of an imperialist plot aimed at overthrowing an enemy
regime. Curiously, this “thesis” does not take up the official version
of the Libyan regime itself, according to which it is on the contrary
Al-Qaeda which is behind the “riots”! However, far from all these
delirious conspiracy theories, there is nothing “singular” or
“particular” about the revolution in Libya, no foreign plot directed
by the CIA or Bin Laden; on the contrary, it is an integral part of
the process of the Arab revolution which is breaking out throughout
the region. Furthermore, this is not happening by chance, since the
dictatorial Libyan regime is precisely geographically wedged between
the Tunisian revolution and the Egyptian revolution.
In spite of everything, Fidel Castro has declared that it “will be
necessary to wait as long as we have to in order to really know what
is truth and what is lies or half-truths in what we are being told
about the chaotic situation (sic) in Libya”. However, he draws an
immediate conclusion from it: “The worst thing now would be to be
silent about the crime that NATO is on the point of committing against
the Libyan people. For the leaders of this warmongering organization,
it is urgent. It must be denounced.” The difficulty is that, as
Santiago Alba Rico and Alma Allende point out, it is not the planes of
NATO which are today machine-gunning the Libyan people, it is the
planes of the Gaddafi regime! Thus, according to Fidel, it is not
urgent to denounce the carnage committed by Gaddafi against his people
and to choose the camp of the popular uprising, it is urgent to
demonstrate against the future and hypothetical intervention of NATO.
So in the name of the threat of a crime that remains a vague
possibility, we should “be silent” about a real crime that is actually
taking place.
Still according to this purely “campist” conception (“the enemies of
my enemies are my friends”), on February 25 President Hugo Chavez has
just, like Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega, given his “support to
the Libyan government”, at the moment when it is massacring its people
with heavy weapons. Admittedly, there is no doubt that imperialism is
lying in wait and hopes to take advantage of the slightest
opportunity. Admittedly, we have to denounce the double morality of
imperialism, which condemns civilian victims in Libya, but not in
Iraq, Afghanistan or Palestine. But that does not at all justify
support for a bloody tyrant, who is precisely giving imperialism a
wonderful opportunity to regain its balance and who, in spite of his
verbal outpourings about the so-called “green revolution", is at the
head of a system of exploitation and a corrupt regime which is part
and parcel of the imperialist network for plundering of the area and
its resources.
In Venezuela, revolutionary organizations such as Marea Socialista
have taken a clear decision in favour of the Libyan people and against
the dictator Gaddafi. We can only hope that the Venezuelan and Cuban
workers will be more capable of understanding what is at stake than
their leaders are. But, even if he comes to his senses and corrects
his position, there is no doubt that the catastrophic declarations of
Chavez will immediately and lastingly ruin the immense prestige which
he has up to now enjoyed among the Arab masses. This popularity came
from his declared opposition to the war and the occupation of
Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, as well as Israel’s aggression
against Lebanon in 2006. It reached its culminating point in January
2009, when he decided to expel the Israeli ambassador part of the
embassy staff to protest against the massacre perpetrated by the
Zionist state against the population of Gaza, thus marking his
“unqualified solidarity with the heroic Palestinian people”. What is
most serious is that, in the person of Chavez, it is the prestige of
an alternative that is identified as progressive and seeking to build
the “socialism of the twenty-first century” which is in danger of
being deeply discredited in the Arab world.
This attitude constitutes a godsend for the reactionary and
imperialist forces who, at present disorientated by the scale of what
is happening, are trying at all costs to take the situation in hand,
to control or to stop the Arab revolution. Moreover, by lining up
shamefully alongside the Libyan tyrant, the Chavist leadership is
shooting itself in the foot by offering ammunition to its own
adversaries and detractors, who constantly make unfounded accusations
about its “dictatorial” nature.
In Europe, in Latin America, in the United States and in Asia, the
Arab people – who are today in the vanguard of the anti-imperialist
struggle - must receive the unreserved support of the progressive
forces of the world. This is the only way to effectively contest the
hypocritical claim of imperialism to represent the democratic
interests of peoples and to counter effectively any threat, real or
intentionally brandished, of a military intervention.
This article was first published in French on the website of the
LCR_SAP, belgian section of the Fourth International :
www.lcr-lagauche.be
Arab revolution/Libya
Latin America and the Arab revolution: the bankruptcy of Chavism?
Ataulfo Riera
In Europe, governments are trying to prevent contagion and solidarity
between European workers and the Arab masses in revolt by brandishing
the scarecrow of Islamism. In Latin America, it is the Venezuelan and
Cuban progressive leaders themselves who are trying to isolate these
rising revolutions by affirming the supposedly “anti-imperialist”
character of the despotic Libyan, Syrian and Iranian regimes, which
are also being destabilized by the rising wave of peoples in struggle.
The Arab revolution constitutes a litmus test for imperialism, but
also for the Cuban and Chavist leaderships. However, if the latter
were also were completely taken by surprise by the upsurge of the Arab
masses, they seem at present to be still unable to grasp the nature,
the depth and the unity of the revolutionary process that is underway
in the entire region. They do not seem to understand at all the
powerful thirst for real democracy, for social justice, for
independence and sovereignty which motivate the Arab masses and the
formidable opportunity that their struggles offer to profoundly modify
the relationships of forces between capital and labour on a world
scale, and with imperialism.
The attitude of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez concerning the events in
Libya is particularly shocking. In a manner that is less pronounced in
the case of the first and pretty consistent in the case of the second,
they imply that the revolt of the Libyan people is the result of
manipulation, of an imperialist plot aimed at overthrowing an enemy
regime. Curiously, this “thesis” does not take up the official version
of the Libyan regime itself, according to which it is on the contrary
Al-Qaeda which is behind the “riots”! However, far from all these
delirious conspiracy theories, there is nothing “singular” or
“particular” about the revolution in Libya, no foreign plot directed
by the CIA or Bin Laden; on the contrary, it is an integral part of
the process of the Arab revolution which is breaking out throughout
the region. Furthermore, this is not happening by chance, since the
dictatorial Libyan regime is precisely geographically wedged between
the Tunisian revolution and the Egyptian revolution.
In spite of everything, Fidel Castro has declared that it “will be
necessary to wait as long as we have to in order to really know what
is truth and what is lies or half-truths in what we are being told
about the chaotic situation (sic) in Libya”. However, he draws an
immediate conclusion from it: “The worst thing now would be to be
silent about the crime that NATO is on the point of committing against
the Libyan people. For the leaders of this warmongering organization,
it is urgent. It must be denounced.” The difficulty is that, as
Santiago Alba Rico and Alma Allende point out, it is not the planes of
NATO which are today machine-gunning the Libyan people, it is the
planes of the Gaddafi regime! Thus, according to Fidel, it is not
urgent to denounce the carnage committed by Gaddafi against his people
and to choose the camp of the popular uprising, it is urgent to
demonstrate against the future and hypothetical intervention of NATO.
So in the name of the threat of a crime that remains a vague
possibility, we should “be silent” about a real crime that is actually
taking place.
Still according to this purely “campist” conception (“the enemies of
my enemies are my friends”), on February 25 President Hugo Chavez has
just, like Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega, given his “support to
the Libyan government”, at the moment when it is massacring its people
with heavy weapons. Admittedly, there is no doubt that imperialism is
lying in wait and hopes to take advantage of the slightest
opportunity. Admittedly, we have to denounce the double morality of
imperialism, which condemns civilian victims in Libya, but not in
Iraq, Afghanistan or Palestine. But that does not at all justify
support for a bloody tyrant, who is precisely giving imperialism a
wonderful opportunity to regain its balance and who, in spite of his
verbal outpourings about the so-called “green revolution", is at the
head of a system of exploitation and a corrupt regime which is part
and parcel of the imperialist network for plundering of the area and
its resources.
In Venezuela, revolutionary organizations such as Marea Socialista
have taken a clear decision in favour of the Libyan people and against
the dictator Gaddafi. We can only hope that the Venezuelan and Cuban
workers will be more capable of understanding what is at stake than
their leaders are. But, even if he comes to his senses and corrects
his position, there is no doubt that the catastrophic declarations of
Chavez will immediately and lastingly ruin the immense prestige which
he has up to now enjoyed among the Arab masses. This popularity came
from his declared opposition to the war and the occupation of
Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, as well as Israel’s aggression
against Lebanon in 2006. It reached its culminating point in January
2009, when he decided to expel the Israeli ambassador part of the
embassy staff to protest against the massacre perpetrated by the
Zionist state against the population of Gaza, thus marking his
“unqualified solidarity with the heroic Palestinian people”. What is
most serious is that, in the person of Chavez, it is the prestige of
an alternative that is identified as progressive and seeking to build
the “socialism of the twenty-first century” which is in danger of
being deeply discredited in the Arab world.
This attitude constitutes a godsend for the reactionary and
imperialist forces who, at present disorientated by the scale of what
is happening, are trying at all costs to take the situation in hand,
to control or to stop the Arab revolution. Moreover, by lining up
shamefully alongside the Libyan tyrant, the Chavist leadership is
shooting itself in the foot by offering ammunition to its own
adversaries and detractors, who constantly make unfounded accusations
about its “dictatorial” nature.
In Europe, in Latin America, in the United States and in Asia, the
Arab people – who are today in the vanguard of the anti-imperialist
struggle - must receive the unreserved support of the progressive
forces of the world. This is the only way to effectively contest the
hypocritical claim of imperialism to represent the democratic
interests of peoples and to counter effectively any threat, real or
intentionally brandished, of a military intervention.
This article was first published in French on the website of the
LCR_SAP, belgian section of the Fourth International :
www.lcr-lagauche.be
Friday, March 4, 2011
Israeli company recruiting mercernaries to support Gdhafi regime in Lybia
Why is this report not a shock? Because if you had been paying attention you would have learned that the former anti-imperialist and "socialist" Gadhafi joined up with Western imperialism and its international neo-liberal financial policies several years ago. Gadhafi still maintained the pretense that he was the leader of an egalitarian people's government while he was selling out his people for his personal benefit and the benefit of international banks and the petrochemical industry. He made Libya part of the pro-corporate and pro-Israel block.
There is something wrong with Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega and the Castros that they still hold him up as a progressive leader and denounce the rebels. Maybe it's blind dogma and self-interest. (money and oil from Gadafi?)
Report: Israel company recruiting Gadhafi mercenaries
Published Tuesday 01/03/011 (updated) 01/03/2011 20:19
Font- Font+
TEL AVIV, Israel (Ma'an) -- An Israeli company is recruiting mercenaries to support Moammar Gadhafi's efforts to suppress an uprising against his regime, an Israeli news site said Tuesday.
Citing Egyptian sources, the Hebrew-language news site Inyan Merkazi said the company was run by retired Israeli army commanders.
The report claims that many high-profile former Israeli officers have been illegally trading weapons in several African nations, and have faced interrogations over their activities in the past.
The news site said the head of the company recently met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Israeli intelligence chief Aviv Cokhavi. It added that the officials all approved the company's recruitment of mercenaries to help Gadhafi.
The leader's brutal crackdown has killed at least 1,000 Libyans so far, human rights groups say.
According to the report, Israeli officials approved the recruitment out of fears that if toppled, Gadhafi would be replaced by an "extremist Islamic regime."
During Gadhafi's four-decade rule of the north African state, he has been one of Israel's most vocal critics.
Company representatives recently flew to Chad to discuss the matter with a high-ranking Libyan intelligence officer Abduallah Sanusi, the report said. During the meeting, Sanusi agreed to pay the company to recruit up to 50,000 mercenaries from African countries, according to the news site.
There is something wrong with Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega and the Castros that they still hold him up as a progressive leader and denounce the rebels. Maybe it's blind dogma and self-interest. (money and oil from Gadafi?)
Report: Israel company recruiting Gadhafi mercenaries
Published Tuesday 01/03/011 (updated) 01/03/2011 20:19
Font- Font+
TEL AVIV, Israel (Ma'an) -- An Israeli company is recruiting mercenaries to support Moammar Gadhafi's efforts to suppress an uprising against his regime, an Israeli news site said Tuesday.
Citing Egyptian sources, the Hebrew-language news site Inyan Merkazi said the company was run by retired Israeli army commanders.
The report claims that many high-profile former Israeli officers have been illegally trading weapons in several African nations, and have faced interrogations over their activities in the past.
The news site said the head of the company recently met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Israeli intelligence chief Aviv Cokhavi. It added that the officials all approved the company's recruitment of mercenaries to help Gadhafi.
The leader's brutal crackdown has killed at least 1,000 Libyans so far, human rights groups say.
According to the report, Israeli officials approved the recruitment out of fears that if toppled, Gadhafi would be replaced by an "extremist Islamic regime."
During Gadhafi's four-decade rule of the north African state, he has been one of Israel's most vocal critics.
Company representatives recently flew to Chad to discuss the matter with a high-ranking Libyan intelligence officer Abduallah Sanusi, the report said. During the meeting, Sanusi agreed to pay the company to recruit up to 50,000 mercenaries from African countries, according to the news site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)