Saturday, 19 February 2011

Palestinians jailed in Egypt announce hunger strike demanding freedom

[ 19/02/2011 - 06:20 PM ]

GAZA, (PIC)-- Palestinians held in a prison in Egypt announced Saturday they will go on hunger strike after hopes for freedom under the new hold of power were crushed.

All of the 19 Palestinians detained at the Al-Aqrab Prison in Hilwan (Greater Cairo) kicked off a hunger strike on Saturday amid demands for improved conditions at the facility and their freedom as ruled by the courts, the coalition of families of Palestinian detainees in Egyptian prisons said.

The Palestinian detainees in the Aqrab Prison have rejected breakfast and lunch and are determined to continue the strike until their demands are met, Emad al-Sayyid, the coalition's spokesman told Quds Press.

"[The coalition] has followed developments in Egypt and was very hopeful at the January 25 revolution which removed the unjust regime that tortured our children and expected they would be released in light of statements issued by the military council when the new phase in Egypt began,” Sayyid said.

"But we were surprised that our children were arrested by the army after they left the prison and were tortured another time...and held in isolation cells filled with filth and bugs and have refused them permission to bathe or change clothing since January 29, which has caused a number of skin diseases and refused to transfer the ill ones among them to the hospital.”

The coalition called on rights groups to defend the detained Palestinians and called for efforts to have the Palestinians detained in Egyptian jails released.

Eight of 39 total Palestinians jailed in Egypt have managed to reach the Gaza Strip after the revolution broke out. The courts have ruled for the release of most of those detainees.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Protests death toll rises in Libya


Doctor tells Al Jazeera that at least 70 people were killed during rallies calling for the ouster of long time leader.
Last Modified: 18 Feb 2011 16:11 GMT
Email ArticlePrint ArticleShare ArticleSend Feedback

Crowds have taken to the streets in Libya demanding more representation and the overthrow of Gaddafi

Security forces in Libya have killed at least 70 pro-democracy protesters in the country's second-largest city as demonstrations demanding the ouster of Col. Moammar Gaddafi, the long time ruler, increase across the country.

A doctor in Benghazi told Al Jazeera that he saw the bodies at the main hospital on Friday in one of the harshest crackdowns against peaceful protesters thus far.

"I have seen it on my own eyes: At least 70 bodies at the hospital," said Wuwufaq al-Zuwail, a physician. He added that security forces also prevented ambulances to reach the site of the protests on Friday.

The Libyan government has also blocked Al Jazeera TV signal in the country. And people have also reported that the network's website is inaccessible from there.

Protesters shot

Marchers mourning dead protesters in Libya's second-largest city have reportedly come under fire from security forces, as protests in the oil-exporting North African nation entered their fifth day.

Mohamed el-Berqawy, an engineer in Benghazi, told Al Jazeera that the city was the scene of a "massacre," and that four demonstrators had been killed on Friday.

"Where is the United Nations ... where is (US president Barack) Obama, where is the rest of the world, people are dying on the streets," he said. "We are ready to die for our country."

Verifying news from Libya has been difficult since protests began, thanks to restrictions on journalists entering the country, as well as internet and mobile phone black outs imposed by the government. But Human Rights Watch has reported that at least 24 protesters have been killed so far, and sources on the ground have said that number could be as high as 70.

Live Blog

Tens of thousands of anti-government protesters seeking to oust Gaddafi took to the streets across Libya on Thursday in what organisers called a "day of rage" modelled after similar protests in Tunisia and Egypt that ousted longtime leaders there. Gaddafi has ruled Libya since 1969.

Funerals for those killed, expected in both Benghazi and the town of Bayda on Friday, may be a catalyst for more protests.

Pro-government supporters also were out on the streets early on Friday, according to the Libyan state television, which broadcasted images labelled "live" that showed men chanting slogans in support of Gaddafi.

The pro-Gaddafi crowd was seen singing as it surrounded his limousine as it crept along a road in the capital, Tripoli, packed with people carrying his portrait.

Deadly clashes on Thursday

Deadly clashes broke out in several towns on Thursday after the opposition called for protests in a rare show of defiance inspired by uprisings in other Arab states and the toppling of Egypt's Hosni Mubarak and Tunisia's Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.

The worst clashes appeared to have taken place in the eastern Cyrenaica region, centred on Benghazi, where support for Gaddafi has historically been weaker than in other parts of the country.

Libya's Quryna newspaper reported that the regional security chief had been removed from his post over the deaths of protesters in Bayda. Libyan opposition groups in exile claimed that Bayda citizens had joined with local police forces to take over Bayda and fight against government-backed militias, whose ranks are allegedly filled by recruits from other African nations.

Political analysts say Libyan oil wealth may give the government the capacity to smooth over social problems and reduce the risk of an Egypt-style revolt.

Gaddafi's opponents say they want political freedoms, respect for human rights and an end to corruption.

Gaddafi's government proposed the doubling of government employees' salaries and released 110 suspected anti-government figures who oppose him - tactics similar to those adopted by other Arab regimes facing recent mass protests.

Gaddafi also has been meeting with tribal leaders to solicit their support.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Confrontations in Silwan after Friday congregation

[ 19/02/2011 - 07:42 AM ]

OCCUPIED JERUSALEM, (PIC)-- Israeli security men used tear gas to disperse rallies that followed the Friday congregation in Silwan, occupied Jerusalem, causing breathing problems among tens of citizens.

Local sources said that the confrontations occurred following the Friday congregation in the sit-in tent in the Bustan suburb in Silwan town, south of the holy Aqsa Mosque.

The Israeli policemen arrested the Palestinian teen Muhanad Qawasme in central Silwan, locals said, recalling that he had lost an eye when he was hit with a rubber bullet on 28 June 2010 during violent clashes with Israeli security forces.

The leader of the Islamic movement in 1948 occupied Palestine Sheikh Ra'ed Salah said during a visit to Silwan and Sheikh Jarrah suburb on Thursday that the Palestinian people are the real owners of occupied Jerusalem.

He said that the Israeli occupation would come to an end sooner or later.

Salah stressed that Palestinians should remain steadfast, explaining that their steadfastness in Jerusalem would inspire steadfastness for the entire Arab and Islamic countries.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Political science professor: Abbas and his entourage must leave

[ 19/02/2011 - 07:57 AM ]

RAMALLAH, (PIC)-- Dr. Abdul-Sattar Qasem, a professor of political sciences at the Al-Najah National University, called on Palestinian de facto president Mahmoud Abbas to step down from office, describing steps Abbas has taken to thwart West Bank settlement activity as ”worthless”.

"There is an attempt to disparage the people's minds, ” Qasem told the PIC in an interview on Friday night. ”What is the value of a resolution from the United Nations regarding the illegality of settlement activity when there are already many resolutions stating settlement activity is illegal and not consistent with international law?”

Abbas has gone before the UN Security Council to pass a resolution condemning settlement activity, a move the US used its veto to thwart.

"Whether they go or do not go [before the UN] … nothing will change, and settlement activity will not be stopped,” Qasem said, adding that the PA has nothing left in its power.

An attention turner

Discussing marches Fatah called for Friday night in support of Abbas's position, Qasem said: ”This is something trivial. Why are they gathering staff and security men and rallying them in marches similar to what Arab regimes that are beginning to fail have used to do?”

He said the move was designed to ”divert the attention” of movements in the Palestinian street which has rejected the concessions made by Abbas and Palestinian negotiators.

They must go

Qasem shed light on what is expected of the Palestinian Authority in coping with the current wave of change sweeping the region. ”What is required is that he (Abbas) leaves us along with his group. It is enough what they have engaged in throughout 23 years (in leadership).”

This is the demand of the general public throughout occupied Palestinian land especially the West Bank, he said. ”The Ramallah authority has insulted our people and made us a laughing stock and has caused havoc in the land and renounced our people's rights and committed many acts our people are not pleased with.”

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Dr. Ashraf Ezzat: THE EGYPTIAN TORAH

In case you missed it;


*******************************
Dr. Ashraf Ezzat: THE EGYPTIAN TORAH



February 19, 2011 posted by Dr. Ashraf Ezzat
James Henry Breasted

Why did the ancient Israelites lie about ancient Egypt?
By Dr. Ashraf Ezzat/ Staff Writer

We prefer to define ourselves in terms of where we are going, not where we come from.  Man is so much smarter now than he was before that anything from the past is outdated and irrelevant to us. Our ignorance of the past is not due to a lack of information, but of indifference. We do not believe that history matters.

The concept of history plays a fundamental role in human thought. It raises the possibility of “learning from history” And it suggests the possibility of better understanding ourselves in the present, by understanding the forces, choices, changes and circumstances that brought us to our current situation.  It is therefore unsurprising that historians and philosophers have sometimes turned their attention to efforts to examine history itself and the nature of historical knowledge. These reflections can be grouped together into a body of work called “philosophy of history”

The American historian, archeologist and Egyptologist, James Henry Breasted (1865-1935) is one of those historians who examined history and did not merely stop at the dates and names of predecessors and their recorded events in the remote past but he worked his intellectual chisels way beyond the surfacing appearances and embarked on a deeper journey into the enshrouded historical truth which took him to the then still mystified world of ancient Egypt where he came to discover for the whole world that this where human conscience first emerged in the history of mankind.

Dawn of conscience

In his masterpiece book “Dawn of conscience” Breasted wrote ..
Like most lads among my boyhood associates I learned the Ten Commandments. I was taught to reverence them because I was assured that they came down from the skies in the hands of Moses, and that obedience to them was therefore sacredly incumbent upon me. I remember that whenever I fibbed I found consolation in the fact that there was no commandment, “Thou shalt not lie”. In later years when I was much older, I began to be troubled by the fact that a code of morals which did not forbid lying seemed imperfect; but it was a long time before I raised the interesting question: How has my own realization of this imperfectation arisen? Where did I myself get the moral yardstick which I discovered this shortcoming in the Decalogue? When that experience began, it was a dark day for my inherited respect for the theological dogma of “revelation.” I had more disquieting experiences before me, when as a young orientalist I found that the Egyptians had possessed a standard of morals far superior to that of the Decalogue over a thousand years before the Decalogue was written”

The after-life

In a book of instructions, Amenemhat, an Egyptian king, advised his son, Sesostris, to attain the highest qualities, because upon his death he will see his whole lifetime in a single instant and his performance on earth will be reviewed and evaluated, by the judges. In recent years, numerous books addressed the near-death experiences of many people. In this phenomenon, it is reported that seeing the person’s whole life span in an instant, is a recurrent theme for all persons with near-death experiences. Death is not the end, but rather it is a transitional state. Such an experience matches exactly the Egyptians’ belief of the afterlife process, which starts with the Day of Judgment where the life of the person is evaluated.

Judgment day


This detail scene, from the Papyrus of Hunefer (ca. 1375 B.C.), shows Hunefer's heart being weighed on the scale of Maat against the feather of truth, by the jackal-headed Anubis. The Ibis-headed Thoth, scribe of the gods, records the result. If his heart is lighter than the feather, Hunefer is allowed to pass into the afterlife. If not, he is eaten by the waiting chimeric devouring creature Ammut composed of the deadly crocodile, lion, and hippopotamus. Vignettes such as these were a common illustration in Egyptian books of the dead

Ancient Egyptians were the first to believe in a day of judgment. According to the recorded rituals, the spirit of the deceased denied committing each sin/fault before its assigned judge, by reciting the forty-two negative confessions (analogous to the famed Ten Commandments). A lot of historians and Egyptologists believe that the Ten Commandments were transcribed by the Israelites from These Egyptian negative confessions which come from The Book of the Coming Forth by Day (commonly and wrongly known as The Book of the Dead.)

In the judgment of the dead the heart, as a metaphor for conscience, is weighed against the feather of truth, to determine the fate of the deceased. The seated God of afterlife —Ausar (Osiris)—presides in the Hall of Justice. The jury consists of 42 judges/jurors. Each judge has a specific jurisdiction over a specific sin or fault; each wears a feather of truth on his/her head. The assigned juror/judge will declare his/her acceptance of the deceased following his reading of the 42 negative confessions by declaring Maa-Kheru (True of Voice/Action).

Tehuti (Thoth), scribe of the neteru (gods), records the verdict, as Anbu (Anubis) weighs the heart against the feather of truth. The outcome is either:
If the pans are not balanced, this means that this person lived simply as matter. As a result, Amam (Ammit) would eat this heart. Amam is a protean crossbreed. The unperfected soul will be reborn again (reincarnated) in a new physical vehicle (body), in order to provide the soul an opportunity for further development on earth. This cycle of life/death/renewal continues until the soul is perfected, by fulfilling the 42 Negative Confessions, during his life on earth. This if you have not noticed is reincarnation.

If the two pans are perfectly balanced, Ausar/Osiris gives favorable judgment, and gives his final Maa-Kheru (True of Voice). The perfected soul will go through the process of transformation and the subsequent rebirth. The outcome of his/her evaluation will determine which heavenly level (2-6) a person reaches.
By maintaining the conditions of the physical vehicle, the body mummifeid, the soul was able to continue its existence in the unknown world of the Duat. As a result, the soul was eventually capable of working towards its own resurrection, and thence, excluding the necessity of another physical reincarnation. The perfected soul will go through the process of transformation, and as the Egyptian writing describes it, “becomes a star (goes to Heaven) and joins the company of Ra, and sails with him across the sky in his boat of millions of years”.

“Though thou goest, thou comest again.
though thou sleepest, thou wakest again
though thou diest, thou livest again”
                                                         verses from the Egyptian funerary texts

The “negative confessions”

from the Papyrus of Ani

 The Declaration of Innocence from the Book of the Dead
Translated by E.A. Wallis Budgec.1240 BCE
 Hail, Usekh-nemmt, who comest forth from Anu, I have not committed sin.Hail, Hept-khet, who comest forth from Kher-aha, I have not committed robbery with violence.Hail, Fenti, who comest forth from Khemenu, I have not stolen.Hail, Am-khaibit, who comest forth from Qernet, I have not slain men and women.Hail, Neha-her, who comest forth from Rasta, I have not stolen grain.Hail, Ruruti, who comest forth from heaven, I have not purloined offerings.Hail, Arfi-em-khet, who comest forth from Suat, I have not stolen the property of God.Hail, Neba, who comest and goest, I have not uttered lies.Hail, Set-qesu, who comest forth from Hensu, I have not carried away food.Hail, Utu-nesert, who comest forth from Het-ka-Ptah, I have not uttered curses.Hail, Qerrti, who comest forth from Amentet, I have not committed adultery, I have not lain with men.Hail, Her-f-ha-f, who comest forth from thy cavern, I have made none to weep.Hail, Basti, who comest forth from Bast, I have not eaten the heart.Hail, Ta-retiu, who comest forth from the night, I have not attacked any man.Hail, Unem-snef, who comest forth from the execution chamber, I am not a man of deceit.
Hail, Unem-besek, who comest forth from Mabit, I have not stolen cultivated land.Hail, Neb-Maat, who comest forth from Maati, I have not been an eavesdropper.Hail, Tenemiu, who comest forth from Bast, I have not slandered [no man].Hail, Sertiu, who comest forth from Anu, I have not been angry without just cause.Hail, Tutu, who comest forth from Ati, I have not debauched the wife of any man.Hail, Uamenti, who comest forth from the Khebt chamber, I have not debauched the wife of [any] man.Hail, Maa-antuf, who comest forth from Per-Menu, I have not polluted myself.Hail, Her-uru, who comest forth from Nehatu, I have terrorized none.Hail, Khemiu, who comest forth from Kaui, I have not transgressed [the law].Hail, Shet-kheru, who comest forth from Urit, I have not been wroth.Hail, Nekhenu, who comest forth from Heqat, I have not shut my ears to the words of truth.Hail, Kenemti, who comest forth from Kenmet, I have not blasphemed.Hail, An-hetep-f, who comest forth from Sau, I am not a man of violence.Hail, Sera-kheru, who comest forth from Unaset, I have not been a stirrer up of strife.Hail, Neb-heru, who comest forth from Netchfet, I have not acted with undue haste.Hail, Sekhriu, who comest forth from Uten, I have not pried into matters.
Hail, Neb-abui, who comest forth from Sauti, I have not multiplied my words in speaking.Hail, Nefer-Tem, who comest forth from Het-ka-Ptah, I have wronged none, I have done no evil.
Hail, Tem-Sepu, who comest forth from Tetu, I have not worked witchcraft against the king.Hail, Ari-em-ab-f, who comest forth from Tebu, I have never stopped [the flow of] water.Hail, Ahi, who comest forth from Nu, I have never raised my voice.Hail, Uatch-rekhit, who comest forth from Sau, I have not cursed God.Hail, Neheb-ka, who comest forth from thy cavern, I have not acted with arrogance.Hail, Neheb-nefert, who comest forth from thy cavern, I have not stolen the bread of the gods.Hail, Tcheser-tep, who comest forth from the shrine, I have not carried away the khenfu cakes from the Spirits of the dead.Hail, An-af, who comest forth from Maati, I have not snatched away the bread of the child, nor treated with contempt the god of my city.Hail, Hetch-abhu, who comest forth from Ta-she, I have not slain the cattle belonging to the god.

Conclusion

Breasted concluded in his book It is now quite evident that the ripe social and moral development of mankind in the Nile Valley, which is three thousand years older than that of the Hebrews, contributed essentially to the formation of the literature which we call the Old Testament. Our moral heritage therefore derives from a wider human past enormously older than the Hebrews, and it has come to us rather through the Hebrews rather than from them
But then, why ancient Egypt was portrayed in the israelite holy scriptures as the seeds of all things evil and immoral while history is telling us a different and truer story . And if modern history and archeology have refuted the inaccurate Israelite narrative about Egypt, including the exodus, what does that say of the accuracy of the overall narrative of the Old Testament? Why did we follow the alleged Israelite Exodus out of such a refined and morally elevated civilization?
Even more why did the ancient Israelites lie about ancient Egypt?  Ancient Egypt, the land where man first learned to discern between right and wrong, where the God of truth resided and where uttering lies was conceived as a grave sin.
For more articles by Dr. Ashraf Ezzat visit his website:http://ashraf62.wordpress.com/
Related articles:

- DR. ASHRAF EZZAT: Power to The People of Historic Egypt

- Dr. Ashraf Ezzat: Egypt to Central Park: We Want Cleopatra’s Needle Back

- The exodus from Egyptology

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

How Zionism infiltrated the US [EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW]

MCS

- 20. Feb, 2011

Mark Bruzonsky, a Jewish, American Scholar and Journalist, has been a key member behind the scenes of the Israeli Palestinian peace initiative in the 1980s, meeting with Former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and with Palestinian officials.

Interview with Scholar and Journalist, Mark Bruzonsky



In this exclusive interview with Press TV’s Autograph, Mr. Bruzonsky talks about the challenges and missed opportunities he witnessed first-hand, and how Zionist groups infiltrated American politics, US institutions and organizations.

He goes further to explain the specific time and day Obama sold out to the AIPAC (American- Israeli Public Affairs Committee) lobby, and how President Obama would never dare oppose the stronghold of the Zionist, Israeli Lobby in the US.

Press TV: In 1982, Mr. Bruzonsky, you authored the Paris Declaration- a breakthrough event that greatly contributed to political developments of the time. Please tell us about that.

Bruzonsky: In the 1980s, in a sense, a lot of us knew there was this political cancer; it was very bad, it was eating up the patient and needed to be dealt with and cured. I was in Paris sitting in a hotel room, a big event in my life, with four very important people – I was there to do the work and write the document.
These people were the former president of France – Pierre Mendis France; the founder of the World Zionist Organization and the World Jewish Congress – Nahem Goldman; his successor, who was the only Jewish leader in America who had ever been president of B’nai Brith and World Jewish Congress and Secretary of Commerce. The man who inspired it was the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s (PLO) Isam Sartawi, the head of the PLO in Europe. They signed this document called the Paris Declaration, I wrote it and it was on the entire front page of Le Monde newspaper; Arafat responded and that was on the front page also.

But then we ran out of steam. The organizations that had founded were not willing to even entertain a discussion on what they had signed; they disassociated themselves from the people who founded their own organizations.

So then the Donahue show asked me to be on their show. The Donahue TV show was the only talk show in America at that time, there was no other competition and I went on it after no other Jewish leaders would accept to go on the program. The timing of the show was pre-intifada, pre-apartheid and there were very few Israeli settlements on Palestine occupied land at the time and the discussion was all about how to bring peace to the region. The two-state solution (with ‘Solution’ emphasized) was in fact a possible solution – it wasn’t going to be totally fair, the Palestinians were going to get a small piece of territory compared to their homeland, but at least there was a lot of support from political people to make it happen. That world is gone. The two-state solution is now dead with the possible exception that you would have to roll back a tremendous number of things that have happened; that’s not going to happen.

The reason that is not going to happen is not because President Obama is not a smart man, not because he doesn’t know that cancer has gotten a lot worse; he knows all that. He also knows that politically he is totally blocked. There is no way in the world he can come up against the Israeli Jewish lobby and their great group of institutions, personalities and foundations – no way. He knows it.

So he continues to talk the language of two-state solution, but that’s largely to keep Abbas and the Palestinian Authority (PA) from being totally discredited.

Press TV: During his inaugural as US president reports were circulating that his administration was going to move away from the Bush doctrine of rejecting Hamas into talks. Where does Hamas stand in the equation? Can there even be talks with the Palestinians when Hamas is sidelined?

Bruzonsky: In my cable TV program that I ended in 2003 I interviewed Musa Abu Marsuk the No.2 leader in Hamas. He was in New York under arrest at the time. I think it was 1996 and the Israeli Jewish lobby got the congress to pass a law outlawing Hamas and so Abu Marsuk, who was living in America as a successful businessman, was imprisoned. I got permission to interview him and do three reality TV programs. I don’t think the Obama people ever said anything positive about Hamas; I think they did say they were going to re-invigorate the peace process – but those are just words, slogans, the devil is in the detail and all that meant was that we (the US) are going to say they have to stop building settlements.

Well, Obama made a joke and a fool out of himself. Didn’t anyone tell what was going to happen the moment he tried to get the Israelis to stop building settlements? There is a whole history that goes back to Camp David and US President Carter who also told the world that he had got the Israelis to agree to stop settlements and then the Israelis at that time made a fool out of that president by saying they had discussed freezing settlements, but only for 90 days. And then after that they escalated their program and we now live in the world we live in.

The story of how Obama became president, how he got support is important here. Obama is a different kind of president and we were all relieved. It was very embarrassing for eight years and more so for people throughout the world that suffered and were being killed by a US president who frankly (it’s not said in Washington and it’s not the kind of thing said at meetings, but many of us consider them as war criminals and we consider Chaney and Bush; they fit the definition of war criminals).

When Obama ran for president he stood for human rights, he was bright and principled, but then during the campaign certain things happened.
First of all the top financiers of the Democratic Party half of them are Jewish and almost all of those are quite Zionist and quite involved with the Israelis. At the time when Hilary Clinton and Obama were competing for support AIPAC had its annual convention. On that day Obama gave a speech and he gave more than what was expected. Lee Hamilton who was on Obama’s advisory board said to me that he went too far – he shouldn’t have said what he said about Jerusalem – we’re going to be correcting it. After the speech, behind the scenes, he was taken to meet the Board of Directors of AIPAC. Rahm Israel Emanuel, former White House Chief of Staff escorted him upstairs to the hotel room.

This is very unusual, presidency candidates don’t usually get interviewed by boards of directors like this, but AIPAC is different. The way the Israeli community signaled that they were going to support Obama, without actually announcing that they had even had a meeting with him, was to have Rahm endorse Obama. So a few hours later Rahm came out in public and did that, which was the signal to the rest of us that Obama had made his peace with this lobby and that he wasn’t going to be able to do anything they weren’t going to approve of.

Press TV: You mentioned that it was well-known to you that the Arab-Israeli conflict will be political cancer if it was not resolved, and at this point it has become the cancer that you mentioned. What has been the main obstacle of not reaching a solution?

Bruzonsky: America is the super power – American money; American arms; American UN vetos; American military support at critical times. The Israelis took a decision way back in the 1940s – and it goes back to the holocaust and back to Jewish impotence; there’s lots of factors it’s not black and white. It was a powerless community, I was part of it – born into a family that my mother and father would tell me we lost all of our relatives nobody knows where they are or they were all killed or maybe some escaped to what had become Israel.

The US has prevented a settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict because the Israelis set up such powerful institutions, lobbies, publications, personalities and control in various ways of political parties and of the media making it impossible for American leaders to do what they knew they should do to solve this cancer; and it goes way back to General Marshall the secretary of state. When President Truman told Marshall that he was going to accept a Jewish state, Marshall was going to resign saying it’s not in the interests of the US it is going to be war, which we won’t be able to end; it’s going to get worse; it’s going to unleash forces we won’t be able to control – he was exactly right.

At every critical moment since: Eisenhower tried to do things in the 1950s, carter tried to do things in the 1970s, but they were blocked. There are plenty of books and academic information about this.

The Israelis then realized since they had control of the US, and Sharon said it bluntly back in 2001, he and Peres had a little debate in a cabinet meeting and the word that leaked out from that meeting was that Peres said that we’ve got to be careful, the Americans aren’t happy with what we’re doing and Sharon said stop worrying about the Americans we control things in America, I’ll take care of things there don’t worry about it. – And he was right.

I’ve been watching all this. I did a lot of traveling for a lot of years through the Middle East while the US has been my home base; and it’s been outrageous.

Bruzonsky: I was a kid journalist just out of school. The Egyptian Embassy in Washington read something I had written. It was a movie review about a film called, “Children of Rage.” And they called me and said it was very interesting and asked if I would like to be the first Jewish journalist that has ever been invited by our government. Of course I said yes. So I went for three weeks and I met everybody: the Foreign Minister, the Minister of State, and then they said to me that they knew the three weeks were up but they wanted me to stay longer because the President wanted to meet with me. And they were so surprised when I said I could stay one more day, but I really have other places I have to go. So I said to thank him so much and it was a great honor and so nice to meet all of them, and I took off.

I went to Oman and then I went to Israel. There was going to be a big peace conference and you will see the connections in just a minute. There was going to be this big peace conference. So I get to Israel and I go to the new outlet magazine, which was sponsoring the conference and George Ball, the most important under Secretary of State, the man who helped resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis was going to be the speaker. And they said to me Mark where have you been. And I said I’ve just been to Egypt. I said I’m here because they wanted me to stay and meet the President but I’m at your peace conference. And they said oh my god don’t you know what has happened. And I didn’t because I had been traveling and it wasn’t like you could tune in to Al-Jazeera in those days. They said the President gave a speech and said he is willing to go anywhere and do anything to bring peace. They said you were supposed to have a meeting with him, and I said yes.

I was in Israel for about six hours. They gave me a whole bunch of cash and wrote a letter and said Mark go back to Cairo and meet the President and invite him to come to our peace conference. So later I’m sitting with the President of Egypt and am given him this invitation, and he was asking me about my three weeks in his country. So there I am and it’s a little hard for me to believe that I’m sitting with the President of Egypt all alone. Maybe forty to fifty feet away there is someone from the Minister of the Interior or somebody to protect, but he can’t even hear he was so far away. And I was so disappointed because at the end of the meeting which was very nice he said I’m very sorry but I will not be able to come to your peace conference. Then I suppose I was just looking sad. I don’t remember saying anything. But he said I have decided I will send a telegram to this conference. And I already knew that leaders in the Arab world do not send telegrams to Israel. I had never heard of such a thing. There wasn’t a procedure. I figured it was just his way of being polite to me. I literally had to leave on the first flight in the morning, and I went to a travel agent that was recommended to me, but at the moment I whispered Israel it was don’t say anther word about Israel.

We can’t talk about Israel and there is no way we can get you to Israel. He said first flight in the morning goes to Athens and that is all I can do. So I said okay and I’m on my flight to Athens. I’m dog tired and I’m half asleep. I traveled so much in those days the moment anybody asked me anything I would say orange juice and English. When I woke up on the plane, there was this newspaper in front of me, The Egyptian Gazette. And I wasn’t sure if was hallucinating or dreaming because as my eyes cleared I said good god that’s me. There is this big picture of me and Sadat on the front page at the top of the paper. But there was no story. It was just Journalist Mark Bruzonsky meets President Sadat. There was no story; no nothing. A day later I’m called aside by the Chairman of the conference. He said Mark in one hour there is a press conference and all the media will be here.

You have to come sit up front and you have to tell everybody about your meeting with the President. And I said what’s going on, what’s going on. He said you know the office is closed but we are all at the hotel. We sent somebody back to get some papers and under the door is this telegram. It wasn’t just oh, hope you had a nice conference. It was a whole page of the importance of peace to the region and what this conflict has done. It was a very long statement which I learned later was written for him. And for 24 hours I was the guy who met the President! It was I that had arranged this telegram and then on Thursday morning came the unbelievable announcement. The President of Egypt arrives to Israel on Shabbat (Saturday) as soon as the sun goes down. And it’s like something out of some dream, as people starting arriving within hours. A press center was set up in almost minutes. There were free phones. Anybody could pick up a phone and call anywhere. And on Saturday night he arrived and I went to the airport with the Egyptian press delegation. We all thought the world was going to change now.
The Israelis would feel accepted, the Palestinians would have their homeland, for at the time it was called a homeland and we weren’t even talking about a state. Then unfortunately everything started to deteriorate, and three years later Sadat was assassinated and it has been downhill ever since.

Press TV: So the postphonement on the decision on settlements led to the fact that it termed from an occupation issue in the eyes of the international community, and everyone who was observing the settlement issues thought it was a contested issue. At that point the issue of settlement could be contested after Oslo. Before that it was an occupation and it wasn’t even discussed.

Bruzonsky: Once the Israelis got the PA (Abbas was the man who actually signed the document) at the White House. Once that got them to sign this agreement and become their collaborating regime without having to agree to stop the settlements. That’s symbolic. If the Israelis weren’t going to stop enlarging the occupation, how could we possibly consider this a major step on the way to a peace settlement? So it was the symbolism of it. Not the actual settlement here or there. The Israelis never intended to stop the settlements.

Rabin in my judgment never attended for what he was signing to end up being a Palestinian state. For them it was autonomy we packaged under different names and they were hiring Arafat and his people to control the Palestinian people. That of course is the origin of the growth of Hamas because many non-religious people and many who had been supporters of Fatah and of more secular things decided we are going to support Hamas. At least they are honest and dignified. At least they have principals and are not corrupt. And Fatah has sold us out. That’s the origins of how in 2006 Hamas was elected.

Press TV: I’m going to dare ask this question to wrap up. Is there light at the end of the tunnel?

Bruzonsky: It’s a very long, dark tunnel now but hopefully saner, wiser policies will prevail down the road. And we can’t afford this anymore. Our own empire is collapsing financially, morally, and spiritually in terms of the credibility of American institutions. We don’t feel it so much in Washington, but around the country, the Tea Party and the other movements is representative of a feeling that our future is dissolving in our place in the world, and our standard of living and what we are providing for our children. There is big conflict here and we don’t have the resources to continue these policies even if you want to argue the policies are right.

Press TV: Mark Bruzonsky, thank you very much for joining us on the Autograph.

Bruzonsky: Thank you Susan.

NM/PKH
Mark Bruzonsky holds dual advanced degrees in international affairs and law from Princeton University and New York University where he was a Root-Tilden Scholar. He is a journalist and international affairs consultant and the publisher of MiddleEast.org as well as the now under development WashReport.  He writes and speaks frequently about world affairs, U.S. foreign policy, the Middle East, the underlying realities of policy-making in Washington, and U.S.-Israeli relations. [Read more]

Related Videos:

AIPAC: The Voice of America — Part 1: The Orange and the Pea [Anthony Lawson Video]

Anthony Lawson (known professionally as Tony Lawson) is a retired international-prize-winning commercials director, cameraman, ad agency creative director and voice over. He used to be known for shooting humorous commercials, but doesn’t find much to laugh about, with the way the world is going, these days.

VIEW MORE ANTHONY LAWSON VIDEOS!

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

The Lebanese “deserve to have their voices heard, Americans don't

On Monday U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton accused Hezbollah of hijacking Lebanon’s democracy.


The Lebanese “deserve to have their democracy respected and their voices heard, and not have one element of their society using the threat of force and the potential of violence to try to achieve political ends,” Helary said...

 The Americans don't deserve

Clinton expressed support for protesters in Iran, saying they "deserve the same rights as they saw being played out in Egypt".

The Americans don't.... This is America



Author: WebsiteTeam Network

US Army veteran and former CIA analyst was thrown out and arrested at George Washington University in Washington DC for protesting a speech given by Hillary Clinton on internet freedom. 
Who are you?

The activist, 71-year-old Ray McGovern, was manhandled and removed by security officers after trying to draw attention with a poster, he said in an interview with Press TV. 

The US secretary of state continued with her prepared remarks as McGovern was dragged away saying, "So this is America. This is America. Who are you?”
“There was no heckler. I was the person there. I said not a word. I stood silently with my back to the secretary, lest she get the idea that everyone in that whole auditorium agreed with her war mongering policies,” he stated on Press TV. 

“I was standing silently, and I was jumped on by a man in a regular suit and then another person in a police uniform. I still don't know who jumped me, but I was taken outside where nobody was watching,” he continued.

“For Hillary Clinton to be talking about peaceful means of protest in the same speech which she continued as she watched me directly in front of her being pounced upon and violated, is a little too much to take,” he added.

McGovern is now being charged with unruly conduct, although he says he will fight the accusations in court.

Veterans for Peace has demanded an apology from Clinton for the incident. So far, they have received no response.

Source: Press TV



River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

US vetoes UN vote on settlements

Washington blocks resolution condemning Israeli buildings on Palestinian land as illegal and calling for quick halt.


The United States vetoed a UN resolution Friday that would have condemned Israeli settlements as "illegal" and called for an immediate halt to all settlement building.

All 14 other Security Council members voted in favour of the resolution.

British Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant, speaking on behalf of his country, France and Germany, condemned Israeli settlements in the West Bank. "They are illegal under international law," he said.
 Palestine will join the United Nations as a new member state by September 2011.

The Obama administration's veto is certain to anger Arab countries and Palestinian supporters around the world. An abstention would have angered the Israelis, the closest US ally in the region, as well as Democratic and Republican supporters of Israel in the American Congress.

Washington says it opposes settlements in principal, but claims that the UN Security Council is not the appropriate venue for resolving the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

US ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice told council members that the veto "should not be misunderstood to mean we support settlement activity.

"While we agree with our fellow council members and indeed with the wider world about the folly and illegitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, we think it unwise for this council to attempt to resolve the core issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians," she said.

Palestinians said the veto is counterproductive to the peace process, helps Israel maintain illegal buildings.
"The American veto does not serve the peace process and encourages Israel to continue settlements, and to escape the obligations of the peace process," said Nabil Abu Rdainah, a close aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Pressure to drop resolution

Earlier, the Obama administration has exerted pressure on the Palestinian Authority to drop the UN resolution in exchange for other measures.

Abbas has refused Washington's request to withdraw a UN Security Council resolution demanding Israel to freeze settlement expansion on occupied Palestinian land.

The decision was made unanimously by the Palestine Liberation Organisation's executive and the central committee of Abbas's Fatah movement on Friday, at a meeting to discuss US President Barack Obama's appeal to Abbas by telephone a day earlier.

"The Palestinian leadership has decided to proceed to the UN Security Council, to pressure Israel to halt settlement activities. The decision was taken despite American pressure," said Wasel Abu Yousef, a PLO executive member.

Obama, who had said Israeli settlements in territories it captured in a 1967 war are illegal and unhelpful to the peace process, says the resolution could shatter hopes of reviving the stalled talks.

In a 50-minute phone call on Thursday, he asked Abbas to drop the resolution and settle for a non-binding statement condemning settlement expansion, Palestinian officials said.

'Goldstone 2'

"Caving in to American pressure and withdrawing the resolution will constitute Goldstone 2," said a Palestinian official, speaking on terms of anonymity before the meeting.

He was referring to the wave of protest in October 2009 accusing Abbas of caving in to US pressure by agreeing not to submit for adoption a UN report that accused Israel and Hamas of war crimes during the invasion of Gaza two years ago.

Abbas maintains he insisted on submitting the report. A second Palestinian official, speaking before the decision was formalised, said it would be "a political catastrophe if we withdraw this resolution".
"People would take to the streets and would topple the president," he said, noting the wave of protest in the Arab world that swept out the Egyptian and Tunisian presidents.

The Palestinians say continued building flouts the internationally-backed peace plan that will permit them to create a viable, contiguous state on the 1967 land, after a treaty with Israel to end its occupation and 62 years of conflict.

Israel says this is an excuse for avoiding peace talks and a precondition never demanded before during 17 years of negotiations, which has so far produced no agreement.

The diplomatic standoff is complicated by the effects of Middle East turmoil on the Arab League, whose members backed the resolution. Egypt, a dominant member, and Tunisia are preoccupied with their transitions from deposed autocracies, and protests are flaring in Libya, Yemen and Bahrain.

Washington is trying to revive peace talks stalled since September over Israel's refusal to extend a moratorium on settlement building and Abbas's refusal to negotiate further until the Israelis freeze the illegal buildings.

'Nothing to lose'

Obama initially pressured Israel to maintain the moratorium only to relent in the run-up to the 2010 US mid-term elections to avoid, some analysts said, alienating key voters.

Instead of the resolution, Obama told Abbas he would back a fact-finding visit by a delegation of the Security Council to the occupied territories.

One PLO official said the leadership was determined not to cave in "even if our decision leads to a diplomatic crisis with the Americans", adding: "Now we have nothing to lose."

Kristin Saloomey, Al Jazeera's correspondent in New York, said that the US has been doing everything it can to stop this vote from happening, including incentives and threats.

"Apparently Obama threatened [on the phone to Abbas] that there would be repercussions if this vote actually came to the floor of the UN Security Council," she said.

"Today secretary of state, Hilary Clinton, called president Abbas [to put on more pressure] but none of this is getting through to the Palestinians.

"Obama is facing intense domestic pressure not to support the vote. The US is in a tough position, they know that a veto is going to make them look very bad in the Arab world ... and also the rest of the world is really in support of this resolution.

"All of the Security Council members are on the record saying they are going to vote for this resolution including US allies".

Since 2000, 14 Security Council resolutions have been vetoed by one or more of the five permanent members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States. Of those, 10 were US vetoes, nine of them related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.


Radwan: American veto blatant bias in favor of Israel

[ 19/02/2011 - 09:50 AM ]

GAZA, (PIC)-- Dr. Ismail Radwan, a Hamas leader, has charged that the US veto against a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity in the occupied Palestinian land reflected absolute bias in favor of Israel.

He said in a statement on Friday night that the veto also constituted a slap in the face of the Fatah-controlled authority in the West Bank that had wagered on the US.

He underlined that there was no more excuse for de facto president Mahmoud Abbas to continue in the frivolous settlement process.

For his part, Fawzi Barhoum, a Hamas spokesman, described the American veto as "shameful", adding that it unmasked the American role that obstructs the international consensus on illegitimacy of Israeli settlement activity in the occupied lands.

He said in a press release on Saturday that the veto was an American reward for the Israeli occupation's crimes and violations against the Palestinian people.

"The US administration was never honest in its patronage of any settlement project or peace process," Barhoum said.

He urged Abbas and his authority to end all forms of negotiations with Israel and to solidify the internal Palestinian front in face of challenges.

The US on Friday vetoed a UNSC resolution to condemn Israeli settlement activity, which was approved by 14 members out of the 15-member council.

Uri Avnery is worried: Obama on the wrong side of history, Uri is not?

 ‘shalom initiative’.
Uri is worried, the "Only democracy in Middle East" missed the second (The first was in 1952) wonderful opportunity of Egytian tsunami to show solidarity with the Egyptian people.

Muslim Brothers, like you said, are not "Taliban-like fanatics", they are Hamas-Like "Fanatics"  democratically elected, they are for Full Liberation,

So, be worried or be on right side of history, and follow Helen Thomas' Honost Advise
With the fall Mubarak’s regime who played a role in the war on Gaza as well as the 2006 war on Lebanon, The region entered a new stage, and your IOF is concerned not about planed wars on Gaza and Lebanon, but about Hamas Liberating Negev and Hezbullah liberating Gallili ( BTW, my home is just 10 km from the borders).

Before yesterday, Nasralla answered your Barak:

“I tell Barak, Ashkenazi and Gantz that the Resistance might have to occupy Galilee. I tell the resistance fighters to be prepared for the day when war is imposed on Lebanon. Then, the Resistance leadership might ask you to lead the Resistance to occupy the Galilee.”

Believe him Uri, he never lied, thefore I assume here is ready, and would turn Barak's war into an oportionity, Imad invented some new rules, that turned the art of war upside down.

SO, URI, HAVE GOOD SHELTER  OR ‘Get the hell out of Palestine’,


********************************************

On the wrong side of history: Obama’s wavering on Egypt
By Uri Avnery

13 February 2011

Uri Avnery argues that US President Barack Obama should have trusted his instinct and placed the US on the right side of history by supporting the people’s revolution in Egypt, rather than give in to the “small people” – politicians, generals, “security experts”, diplomats, pundits, lobbyists, business leaders and. the hugely powerful Israel lobby.

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

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

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

The right instincts

When confronted with a new situation, Obama’s first response is generally admirable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enter the small people – and the Israel lobby

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, every single one of these arguments can easily be refuted.

Spurious arguments

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

But the true Iranian story is quite different.

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

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

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

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

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

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded 80 years ago, long before Obama and Netanyahu were born. They have settled down and matured, with a strong moderate wing, much like the moderate, democratic Islamic party that is governing Turkey so well, and which they are trying to emulate. In a democratic Egypt, they would constitute a legitimate party playing its part in the democratic process. (This, by the way, would have happened in Palestine, too, when Hamas was elected – if the Americans, under Israeli guidance, had not toppled the unity government and set Hamas on a different course.)

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

Obama’s volte-face

So what did Obama do? His moves were pathetic, to say the least.

After turning against Mubarak, he suddenly opined that he must stay in power, in order to carry out democratic reforms. As his representative, he sent to Egypt a retired diplomat whose current employer is a law firm that represents the Mubarak family (much as Bill Clinton used to send committed Jewish Zionists to “mediate” between Israel and the Palestinians.)

So the detested dictator was supposed to institute democracy, enact a new liberal constitution, work together with the very people he had thrown into prison and systematically tortured.

Mubarak’s pathetic speech on 10 February was the straw that broke the back of the Egyptian camel. It showed that he had lost contact with reality or, worse, is mentally deranged. But even an unbalanced dictator would not have made such an atrocious speech had he not believed that America was still on his side. The howls of outrage in the square while Mubarak’s recorded speech was still being aired was Egypt’s answer. That needed no interpreters.

But America had already moved. Its main instrument in Egypt is the army. It is the army that holds the key to the immediate future. When the Armed Forces Supreme Council convened on 10 February, just before that scandalous speech, and issued a “Communique No. 1”, hope was mingled with foreboding.

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

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

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

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

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

The army tried first to govern through civilian politicians. They soon lost patience with that. A charismatic young lieutenant-colonel, Gamal Abd-al-Nasser, emerged as the leader, instituted wide-ranging reforms, restored the honour of Egypt and the entire Arab world – and founded the dictatorship which expired on 11 February 2011.

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

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

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

For Israel there is another lesson. When the Free Officers made their revolution in 1952, in the whole of Israel only one single voice was raised (that of Haolam Hazeh, the news magazine I was editing) calling upon the Israeli government to come out in support. The government did the opposite, and a historic chance to show solidarity with the Egyptian people was lost.

Now, I am afraid, this mistake will be repeated. The tsunami is being viewed in Israel as a terrifying natural catastrophe, not as the wonderful opportunity it is.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian