Alaa Abdel Fattah: Portrait of an Egyptian Revolutionary

by Dr. Ashraf Ezzat on October 31, 2011



Alla Abdel-Fattah

“When will Egypt supreme council of army forces -SCAF- understand that many revolutionaries are afraid of their tender loving mothers more than they fear death or torture,” Abdel Fattah wrote in independent Egyptian newspaper, Al-Shorouk.

Prominent Egyptian blogger and activist Alaa Abdel Fattah was summoned on Sunday, 30 October to Cairo’s notorious C28 military prosecution headquarters to face charges of incitement to violence in the violent 9 October Maspero clashes between Coptic-Christian protesters and military police.
Abdel Fattah, who rejects the notion of civilians being tried by military courts, has refused to be interrogated by military prosecutors as a matter of principle. He has also vociferously criticised the idea that the military prosecution should investigate the Maspero clashes, in which military police were directly involved.

As a result, the military prosecution ordered his detention for 15 days pending investigation.
Abdel Fattah is considered one of Egypt’s pioneer bloggers, along with his wife, Manal Hussein. Since 2004, both have been publishing their political opinions in well-known blog www.manalaa.net.
Originally, as a software developer and activist, Abdel Fattah has supported initiatives that promote social media, freedom of expression and political activism. In 2005, Alaa and Manal won the Special Reporters without Borders Award in Deutsche Welle’s Best Blogs competition.

It is not the first time Abdel Fattah finds himself facing allegations by the state. In May 2006, he was arrested while participating in a peaceful protest in solidarity with Egypt’s free judiciary movement. His arrest caused an international uproar, as it was seen as an attempt to crack down on blogging activity in Egypt by targeting one of its most influential bloggers.

Abdel Fattah was eventually released in June 2006 after 45 days in detention, during which an international campaign was launched on blogs and on Twitter with the hashtag “#FreeAlaa” – a hashtag that again found its way to many Twitter accounts following news of his latest detention.

Born in 1981, Abdel Fattah was brought up in a family of leftists with a long history of political activism. His father, Ahmed Seif El-Islam Hamed, is a prominent lawyer and human rights activist who used to run the Cairo-based Hisham Mubarak Law Centre. Ahmed Seif El-Islam was arrested in the 1980s and imprisoned for five years for his political activity.

Abdel Fattah’s mother, Laila Soueif, is a professor of mathematics at Cairo University, while his aunt is Ahdaf Soueif, an Egyptian novelist of international renown. Alaa’s sister, Mona Seif, meanwhile, is one of the founders of the “No to military trials for civilians” campaign.

Abdel Fattah’s wife, Manal, also comes from a family with a long activist pedigree. Manal’s father is Bahi El-Din Hassan, a founder of Egypt’s contemporary human rights movement and current head of the Cairo Centre for Human Rights Studies.

Abdel Fattah and Manal moved to South Africa in 2008, where they lived until January of this year, when they took the first flight to Cairo to join Tahrir Square protesters as the revolution erupted. His first day in the square coincided with what has become known as the “Battle of the Camel,” when pro-government thugs attacked demonstrators, leaving dozens dead.
“Alaa fought bravely to defend the square and was never worried that he might lose his life,” said Wael Khalil, prominent blogger and leftist political activist imprisoned with Abdel Fattah in 2006.

Following Mubarak’s ouster and concomitant promises of democratic transition, the couple decided to return to Egypt on a permanent basis. Through their twitter accounts, “@alaa” and “@manal,” the couple announced their intention to have a baby. The baby, they noted, would be named Khaled after Khaled Said, the young man from Alexandria beaten to death by police last year who became a posthumous icon of Egypt’s revolution.

The last thing Abdel Fattah wrote publicly, in independent daily Al-Shorouk, was his eyewitness account of the Maspero clashes and the two days spent at a Coptic hospital morgue battling for autopsy reports. He also spent this time mourning the death of Mina Daniel, the Coptic activist who was run over by military police during the clashes.

“When will the SCAF understand that many revolutionaries are afraid of their tender loving mothers more than they fear death or torture,” Abdel Fattah wrote in Al-Shorouk.

Statement of Solidarity by Egyptian blogs aggregator: Alaa Abd El Fattah Boycotts Military Trials

Sunday, October 30, 2011

We, the Campaign to End the Military Trials of Civilians, condemn in the strongest possible terms the imprisonment of prominent Egyptian activist and blogger, Alaa Abd el Fattah and the unjust and illegal system of military tribunals implemented by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) since becoming rulers of Egypt on January the 28th, 2011.

SCAF deadly crackdown on Egypt Copts on October 9th at Maspero, downtown Cairo.

Today Alaa Abd El Fattah was summoned to the Military Prosecutor’s office, accused of assaulting military personnel, stealing and destroying military weaponry and inciting violence against the military in the events of 9 October at Maspero.
On questioning, Abd El Fattah declined to answer the prosecutor’s questions, stating that it is illegal and a clear conflict of interest for the military, as a party accused of a crime in the same events, to hold proceedings or adjudicate fairly. He was sent to detention pending further military investigation.
As of today we refuse to co-operate with the military prosecution of civilians and we call on all Egyptian citizens to stand with us.

At least 12,000 Egyptian civilians have been subjected to summary, covert military trials. The accused are often denied counsel, the opportunity to review evidence or examine witnesses; there are limited avenues of appeal. Eighteen death sentences have been handed down so far.

Abd El Fattah’s targeting is only the latest example of the systematic targeting of journalists, media figures, bloggers and activists by SCAF.

Abd El Fattah is being held responsible for violence on October 9th, the night when the Army killed at least 28 peaceful protesters and injured several hundred more. Several respected human rights organisation have attested to this.

Mina Daniel

Furthermore, it is perverse that Mina Daniel is listed as the first name on the Military Prosecutor’s list of the accused. Mina Daniel was killed by military gunfire on October 9th.

Abd El Fattah is now being held for fifteen days in prison by a body which has no legal authority to do so. The fifteen days can be renewed indefinitely. Twenty eight more people are in jail against the background of the same event. Mina Daniel and others have already paid with their lives.

We demand that Alaa Abd El Fattah be freed immediately, that military trials of civilians be stopped and all those sentenced thus far be released or, at least, retried before civilian courts. We support all of those who similarly refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the military prosecution.
Sources: Egyptian Blogs Aggregator, ahramonline and manalaa.net

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Red Scribblings: From Atzmon to Dreyfus-a reply to communalists and Stalinists

Saturday, October 29, 2011 at 8:18PM Gilad Atzmon

Introduction by Gilad Atzmon:

Red Scribblings, is a rare entity-he is a left thinker. He employs reasoning and systematic analytical methods. In the following article he exposes the level of deceitfulness employed by Tony Greenstein and his ilk. Reading Red Scribblings is certainly an interesting intellectual exercise.

redscribblings.wordpress.com

Tony Greenstein’s extended comment criticising my review of Gilad Atzmon’s new book The Wandering Who is indicative of a political method that can only lead to a ‘dialogue of the deaf’. It is a characteristic flaw of the fragmented far left that in political disputes someone is quoted out of context in such a way as to distort the meaning of their views, and a whole extended narrative is concocted to attack the falsified or caricatured version. This is not a good method, it not only actually leaves one’s interlocutor’s real views untouched, but it also makes the exchange impossible to follow to the uninitiated layperson.

Such practices make the left a laughing stock. In this case, however, there is an additional element of communalism in that Atzmon is being ‘punished’ by left-wing members of his own Jewish community not merely for being right or wrong about something, but also for speaking ‘against’ his own people. The peculiar ferocity of the attack not only on Atzmon, but also on anyone who disagrees with these people’s most extreme characterisations, is shown by the contribution of another Jewish leftist, Evildoer, who baldly admits he does not seek a rational discussion at all with leftists who disagree with him about Atzmon.

To read more:redscribblings.wordpress.com

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Al Qaeda's flag in Benghazi!

Al Qaeda's flag in Benghazi!

Via MoonOfAlabama. More Here;

"... But according to multiple eyewitnesses—myself included—one can now see both the Libyan rebel flag and the flag of al Qaeda fluttering atop Benghazi’s courthouse. 

According to one Benghazi resident, Islamists driving brand-new SUVs and waving the black al Qaeda flag drive the city’s streets at night shouting, "Islamiya, Islamiya! No East, nor West," a reference to previous worries that the country would be bifurcated between Gaddafi opponents in the east and the pro-Gaddafi elements in the west..."

Gordon Duff Calling for unity??? What Time is It?

 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

NATO Ends the "most successful" Mission

The mission shall continiue under another name.

BUSINESS SCAVENGERS:
 SECOND PHASE of Operation UNIFIED PROTECTOR

Like in Iraq, "Real Libyans", sooner or later Libyans will realize, what they did to their country, however, the so-called "most successful" mission may encourage Nato, to attack Syria, especially with Syrian "nato brothers" and opposition in excile calling for "humanitarian intervention",

"The term ‘foreign intervention’ is interpreted differently, depending on who you talk to in the opposition. It ranges from urging foreign powers to put pressure on the regime to demanding direct military action....."

"....What could start with simple steps under the banner of civilian protection in a sensitive country like Syria could turn quickly into assassination, partition, instability, hegemony and a redrawing of the map of the region."

So the scenario, We Came, We Saw, He Died without losing a single life shall not work.

Meanwhile Al-Assad Warns of “Earthquake” if West Intervenes in Syria

17 killed, including 4 US soldiers, in suicide bomb attack on NATO in Kabul

NATO Ends Libya Mission

Local Editor

NATO was on Monday ending its mission in Libya, describing the campaign as one of its "most successful" yet. NATO on Friday announced the end of the mission, declaring that the 28-nation alliance had fulfilled its UN mandate to protect civilians from a brutal repression. "We have fully complied with the historic mandate of the United Nations to protect the people of Libya, to enforce the no-fly zone and the arms embargo," NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in a statement announcing the decision. "Operation Unified Protector is one of the most successful in NATO history. We are concluding it in a considered and controlled manner -- because our military job is now done." The no-fly zone and naval blockade, enforced by NATO since March 31, will end at 11:59 pm Libyan time (2159 GMT), as stipulated by a UN Security Council resolution last week that closed the mandate authorizing military action. The mission was terminated even though Libyan interim leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil had asked for the alliance to stay until the end of the year, arguing that Gaddafi loyalists still posed a threat. Gaddafi was killed on October 13 by a NATO raid that targeted his convoy in his hometown of Sirte, paving the way for National Transitional Council fighters to capture him and then kill him.

Source: Agencies

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

A Great Jewish Joke..

Saturday, October 29, 2011 at 6:55PM Gilad Atzmon

 

Harry and Esther are flying to Australia for a 3 week holiday to celebrate their 40th anniversary.

Suddenly, over the public address system, the Captain announces,
"Ladies and Gentlemen, I am afraid I have some very bad news. Our
engines have ceased functioning and we will attempt an emergency
landing. Luckily, I see an uncharted island below us and we should be able to land on the beach. However, the odds are that we may never be rescued and will have to live on the island for the rest of our lives."

Thanks to the skill of the flight crew, the plane lands safely on the island.

An hour later Harry turns to his wife and asks, "Esther, did we pay our Kol Nidre charity pledge to the Synagogue yet?"

"No, sweetheart," she responds.
Harry, still shaken from the crash landing then asks, "Esther, did we pay our United Jewish Israel Appeal pledge?"

Oh, no! I'm sorry. I forgot to send the cheque, she says.

"One last thing, Esther. Did you remember to send a cheque for the

Jewish Care appeal this month?," he asks.

"Forgive me, Harry," begged Esther. "I was so excited about our holiday that I didn't send that one, either."

Harry grabs her and gives her the biggest hug and kiss in 40 years.

Esther pulls away and asks him, " So, why did you kiss me?"

Harry answers, "They'll find us."

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

The Source of America's Wars - Kristol Clear

Written by Maidhc Ó Cathail



Kristol Clear: The Source of America’s Wars

Written by Maidhc Ó Cathail

Americans feeling let down by Barack Obama’s escalation of the war in Afghanistan should take careful note of those who welcomed yet another “surge.” It might help them to identify the source of their seemingly endless wars.

For instance, in a recent Washington Post opinion piece, William Kristol described Obama’s West Point speech as “encouraging.” It was “a good thing,” he said, that Obama was finally speaking as “a war president.”

But if the comments on the Post website are anything to go by, few ordinary Americans take Kristol’s armchair warmongering seriously anymore. After all, as one poster quizzically asked, “A column by William Kristol the neocon that was wrong about everything from 2000-2008?”

Although Kristol, like the rest of the neocons, “erred” about Iraq’s WMDs and Saddam’s links to Al Qaeda and 9/11, it would be a fatal error indeed to dismiss him as a fool.

In order to understand what motivates Bill Kristol’s professed hyper-patriotism, with its consistently disastrous prescriptions, it’s worth recalling how his father, Irving Kristol, reacted to Vietnam War critic Senator George McGovern. The presidential contender’s proposed cut in U.S. military expenditure would, according to the “godfather” of neoconservatism, “drive a knife in the heart of Israel.”

“Jews don’t like big military budgets,” the elder Kristol explained in a Jewish publication in 1973. “But it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States … American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.”

American Greatness

Following his father’s advice, William Kristol has been a fervent supporter of massive U.S. military spending. In 1996, he co-authored with Robert Kagan an influential neocon manifesto titled “Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy.” It recommended that “America should pursue a vision of benevolent hegemony as bold as Reagan’s in the 1970s and wield its authority unabashedly.

“The defense budget should be increased dramatically, citizens should be educated to appreciate the military’s vital work abroad, and moral clarity should direct a foreign policy that puts the heat on dictators and authoritarian regimes.”

In response, another influential opinion-maker, Charles Krauthammer, hailed Kristol and Kagan as “the main proponents of what you might call the American greatness school.” It is hardly a coincidence, however, that all three advocates of “American greatness” care passionately about what Irving Kristol euphemistically referred to as “the survival of the state of Israel.” Or that many of those “dictators and authoritarian regimes” just happened to stand in the way of Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.

The following year, Kristol and Kagan co-founded the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), a pressure group which sought to advance their “neo-Reaganite” vision. In the late 1990s, they did this mainly by writing letters to Bill Clinton, urging him to oust Saddam Hussein.

In September 2000, PNAC published “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” in which they famously acknowledged that “the process of transformation … is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

One year later, they got their wished for “new Pearl Harbor” on September 11. The mass murder of almost 3,000 Americans was, as Benjamin Netanyahu indelicately put it, “very good” for Israel.

Kristol’s War

Immediately, Kristol’s Weekly Standard began linking Iraq to the attacks. Writing in The American Conservative, Scott McConnell explained the strategy: “Their rhetoric – which laid down a line from which the magazine would not waver over the next 18 months – was to link Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden in virtually every paragraph, to join them at the hip in the minds of readers.”

The “Saddam must go” campaign, begun in a Kristol and Kagan editorial as far back as 1997, became so relentless that Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen dubbed it “Kristol’s War.”

The Iraq War has, of course, also been called “Wolfowitz’s War.” But it could just as aptly have been named after Perle, Feith, Libby, Zelikow, Lieberman, or any of the other pro-Israeli insiders who took America to war by way of deception.

In “Irving Kristol RIP,” Antiwar.com editor Justin Raimondo described Kristol’s legacy as “war, war, and yet more war, as far as the eye can see.”

Unless Americans soon realize that they’ve been deceived by those for whom “American greatness” is merely a means to advance “the survival of the state of Israel,” that legacy promises to be an enduring one.

Assad to Russia-1: 'We are willing to cooperate with all opposition parties...'

Via FLC

'Recent Pro-Assad rally in Damascus'

"... Bashar Assad also gave an interview to Russia’s Channel One in which he stated that Russia’s role is decisive in calming the conflict in Syria. He said that the Syrian authorities have been in touch with their Russian colleagues from the very start of the crisis and have kept them informed of every ongoing detail.In the interview he said that he is willing to cooperate with all opposition parties that have emerged during the seven-month uprising against his regime.
But he also raised questions about the true nature of the forces that are fighting against his government.

“...The information obtained during the latest interrogation of terrorists shows that there was arms smuggling to Syria from neighboring states,...The campaign was funded from abroad and we have a list of those who are responsible for this....” Assad said

Assad expressed gratitude to Russia for using its veto in the UN Security Council at the start of October to block a harsh resolution on Syria and expressed hope that Moscow will continue to support the Syrian leadership.
Russia has been supporting Damascus ever since the violence between armed opposition and Syrian law enforcement began in February. At the same time, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has insisted that if the Syrian leadership fails to sit down with the opposition at the negotiating table, it will have to go.
In September, the Syrian opposition labeled Moscow an enemy and conducted a Day of Rage at various Russian embassies around the world. They also demanded Western powers establish a “no-fly zone” over Syria, similar to the one set up in Libya.
However, dissident Syrian writer and democracy campaigner, Michel Kilo, thinks the majority of the population does not want a military solution to the crisis.
“We are against military intervention whether today, tomorrow or in ten years’ time,” says Kilo. “We fight for freedom and we do not want to add external slavery to our domestic one. We do not want to become a part of the struggle between international and domestic forces. Syrians are peaceful. They want to progress under conditions of freedom and development and they do not want to be turned into a concentration camp, a polygon for larger countries,” Michel Kilo concludes...."

Posted by G, M, Z, or B at 9:44 PM

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Israel, U.S. , want Abbas to be full-fledged traitor

In his previous comments.

• Mr. Amayereh thought "the Palestinian Authority (PA) decision to move against Muhammed Dahlan, the perpetual trouble-maker, will erase a major cause of the collision between Hamas and Fatah."
• Cosequentely he "thought that the Dayton era was well behind us." and Abbas will be remembered as a "a sincere man who tried but failed to make peace with Israel, even at a terrible price, namely giving up more than 78% of historical Palestine".
• Shocked with Abbas Disgraceful behavior, Mr. Amayereh, after "de facto alliance" and "Mass axis", invented another new term. He wrote: "Israel, U.S. , want Abbas to be full-fledged traitor"

Don't blame Mr. Amayereh, living in WB he can't call the traitor ( "He, presumably could lose his freedom if he did"), Traitor. May be he will do it in his next comment.

In his below coment, you would learn new terms, such as, "genuine democratization"

Democracy can't bring freedom to prisoners. "The Palestinian people therefore need, first and foremost, freedom from the Nazi-like occupation before they can exercise democracy." he clamed, ignoring (not forgetting) that Palestinians exercised democracy and elected Hamas and prevented, the so-called "half-fledged traitor" from selling Jerusalem, and the right of return.

After 477 Palestinians were freed in Gilad Shalit deal Zahar challenged Abbas to measure his popularity in elections.

Yes "Hamas is here to stay" So far Hamas stayed "Because it represents the true aspirations of most Palestinians for a better tomorrow" ( Forgive Mr. Amayereh, he can't say for full liberation, "He, presumably could lose his freedom if he did")

In case you missed it:

Real Islam in harmony with real democracy.

Biden prescription for winning wars without losing a single life. (Making new Bin Ladens) 

Israel, U.S. , want Abbas to be full-fledged traitor

[ 28/10/2011 - 10:13 PM ]

By Khalid Amayreh

It seems that the tight Jewish stranglehold on the American government is not only preventing the Obama administration from pursuing a fair, rational and honest approach to the enduring Palestinian crisis, but is also inhibiting the formulation in Washington of an accurate and objective understanding of basic facts in and about the Middle East.

An example of this willful and unnecessary ignorance was a statement made recently by the US Ambassador for Middle East Peace David Hale.

According to Hale, the Arab Spring could "sweep Hamas from power."

"The Palestinians are no more immune to currents of change and demand for democratization, reform and freedom than any other people in the region," he was quoted as saying.

"I think you will see those same forces affect Hamas because clearly their leadership is not characterized by any of those words."

Hale's words exude a lot of ignorance and misunderstanding of the facts and realities in the region.

First of all, the Palestinian people have been languishing under a sinister Israeli military occupation for 44 years, and no amount of "democratization" in occupied Palestine will change this fundamental fact.

The Palestinian people therefore need, first and foremost, freedom from the Nazi-like occupation before they can exercise democracy. Perhaps people like Hale can't bring themselves to uttering the word occupation for fear of upsetting the Jewish lobby in Washington . He presumably could lose his job if he did, especially in a sensitive election year. Hence, the conceived phobic reaction.

Like most Palestinians, I am not against genuine democratization in Palestine. However, let us be honest and have no illusion: Without ending the evil Israeli occupation, no amount of democratization would really help the Palestinians attain their freedoms. The absence of democracy in Palestine is due to the presence of the occupation. Twisting this fact would be an expression of dishonesty and mendacity.

Does democracy practiced by inmates in a maximum-security jail bring freedom to prisoners? Yes, it might help them manage their daily life and routine inside the jail, but it won't help them regain their freedom.

Likewise, the Palestinian people are not merely striving to enhance their daily life, though this is a legitimate and important task, if only to help Palestinians withstand the systematic and institutionalized oppression meted out to them by Zio-Nazism.

The Palestinian people want absolute and total freedom from the decades-old nefarious Israeli occupation.

Besides, since when did the US really show any serious concern about democratization in occupied Palestine or elsewhere in the Arab-Muslim region?

Didn't the U.S. abruptly lose its composure and mental equanimity when Hamas won the Palestinian elections in 2006? Didn't a U.S., under aggressive and frenzied Jewish pressure, acted rather spasmodically to strangle and throttle the Palestinians following the said elections which by the way the Bush administration itself had Okayed?

I am afraid I have bad news for Mr. Hale and his equally ignorant boss or bosses in Washington. Hamas is here to stay. Hamas, which only last week forced Israel to release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners from its dungeons and concentration camps, is strong and getting stronger:
Strong because it represents the true aspirations of most Palestinians for a better tomorrow; and stronger because an arrogant Israel driven by Talmudic insolence only understands the language of force, stubbornness and strength.

More to the point, a soft, obsequious approach toward Israel won't take the Palestinians anywhere. It will only transform them into vanquished supplicants begging for their legitimate rights from an arrogant and rapacious Israel that is hell bent on stealing the remainder of Palestinian land.

The truth of the matter regarding the impact of the Arab Spring on Hamas is that it has not only vindicated the liberation movement's approach toward Israeli occupation, but it has also created an auspicious atmosphere conducive to helping Hamas and the Palestinians as a whole expedite their goals.

The growing good chemistry between Hamas and Cairo is undoubtedly an auspicious development. The upcoming elections in Egypt, slated to start on 28 November, is expected to produce pleasant surprises if the nationalist and Islamist forces achieve victory in the polls and form the next Egyptian government.

Israel and her guardian-ally, the U.S., (the latter is getting weaker and bankrupt by the hour) know that hundreds of millions of Arabs and Muslims expect the next government in Cairo to find a real correlation between the Egyptian commitment to uphold the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty and Israeli treatment of and behavior toward the Palestinian cause and people. I bet this is going to be a serious matter for Israel's firsters and the Zionist shipyard dogs in Washington who think Israel's interests come even before American interests.

In any case, the Islamists are simply coming, and Israel will soon become bereft of friends in this region, no matter what desperate feats Israel is trying. And Israel has only itself to blame.

The Israeli state, itself a crime against humanity (perhaps people like Hale would shake in fear while reading this shocking but veracious phrase) never really lost an opportunity to alienate Arabs and Muslims. The murderous Israeli modus operandi toward the Palestinians and other peoples in the region has generated a huge reservoir of hatred toward the Jewish state. The Arab masses, whether in Egypt or Tunisia or even Libya, will not waste anytime venting their frozen rage and accumulative frustration vis-à-vis Israel when they are given the chance to do so.

The King of Jordan Abdullah II recently "warned" that Egypt might effectively abrogate its peace treaty with Israel and that Jordan was effectively becoming the last remaining advocate of peace with the Jewish state? The king knew what he was talking about. However, his warnings are unlikely to be heeded, given Israel's characteristic insolence and America 's brazen subservience to the evil entity and its backers in Washington .

As to the whoring peace process, it is really difficult to talk about this process using dignified language. How else can one relate to a process that is based on lies, fraught with lies, and shaped by lies?

Israel, which we earlier described as a crime against humanity because it is based on ethnic cleansing, genocide, and aggression, wants Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas to become a full-fledged traitor.
Israel wants him to kiss the paramount right of return for the refugees goodbye, wants him to forget East Jerusalem, and wants him to formally accept perpetual Israeli control over Palestinian borders, water resources as well as the settlements established by Israel on occupied Arab land since 1967.

Needless to say, Abbas would rather commit suicide than agree to these irrational demands. He knows that any Palestinian leader agreeing to these capitulations will not live long to even regret his folly.

Besides, how can Abbas possibly offer a "workable" alternative to Hamas's seemingly more logical and appealing line, which is based on resistance and steadfastness?

Will Israel, for the sake of Abbas's legendary moderation, withdraw to the borders of the 4th of June, 1967? Will Israel terminate the building of colonies and Judaizing of Jerusalem? Will Israel allow for the repatriation of millions of refugees uprooted from their homes when the evil entity was established 63 years ago, which is a sine-qua-non for any genuine and durable peace deal in the region? Will Israel dismantle the settlements?

The answer is a plain NO.

Another question: Will the U.S. pressure Israel to end its decades-old occupation? The answer is also a plain NO because the Jewish lobby is in tight control of American politics and policies. Moreover, an American president, especially in an election year, won't commit political suicide by displeasing the only state in the world that truly calls the shots in Washington.

********************************************
So Bahr hit the nail in saying Unity Is Abbas’ Only Option
The so-called "half-fledged traitor" faces three bitter options,

Commit suicide as a "Full-Fledged traitor"
Or
Commit suicide as a "Half-Fledged hero"
Or he would try to save his by dissolving the Palestinian Authority

Another Question for Mr, Amayereh: Will the "Jewish lobby is in tight control of American politics and policies let the US intervine in Libya, and Syria?

The answer is also a plain yes, "especially in an election year", to please "the only state in the world that truly calls the shots in Washington."

In case you missed:

• On Khalid Amayreh, Syrian Brothers "revolution" and the A great day for Palestine
• Khalid Amayreh: "The Syrian regime must change, or it will be changed" 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

The Bottomless Pit

Via LEFTWING-CHRISTIAN.NET

Remember how we supposedly went to Libya to "protect civilians"? I came across this today and decided to post it as a follow-up to yesterday's Unspeakable Evil post. I don't want to sicken or offend people by posting material like this, but I think it's important that Americans see the consequences of our government's actions. What kind of beast has our country evolved into? We seem as a nation to be sinking ever further into a bottomless pit. Brace yourself. What you are about to see is a child, still alive, though with the lower portion of his face blown off by NATO's "freedom fighters" in Libya.

And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit. (Rev. 9:1)

By the way, the above video, featured here, I found posted along with the comment, "The White House will burn in hell for this."

And he opened the bottomless pit... (Rev. 9:2)

Is NATO Preparing for World War III?

Thedailybell.

Pakalert Press

According to reliable sources, China has attempted to warn Russia of US and NATO plans to initiate a global armed conflict. This conflict has reportedly moved from the drawing board to an activation stage. According to both Chinese and Russian Intelligence Sources, the US and NATO plans include among other, the deliberate implosion of the US- and EU Economies, destroying the worlds financial systems, and the launching of a massive conventional war throughout North America, Africa and Asia, as well as the Middle East. The war plans include the release of biological warfare agents designed to kill millions if not billions of people. The NATO strategists rely on their ability to sue for peace when the coming conflict is at its highest, to call for the establishment of a “New World Order” under the pretext of preventing the destruction of the planet and civilization as we know it. – NSNBC by Dr. Christof Lehmann

Dominant Social Theme: The world is a dangerous place and the West has to be prepared to defend its citizens from terrorism – any place, any time.

Free-Market Analysis: Are we headed toward world war? Dr. Christoff Lehmann seems to think so. He comes with significant credentials, at least if his Internet bio is to be believed. And regardless of the credibility of Lehmann himself, the current global environment is poisonous and almost anything seems possible.

Within this context, Lehmann's post (excerpted above) seems perfectly rational (even if one accepts that much of this sort of writing is likely disinformation). For the purposes of this article, we'll take the argument at face value. Here's a backgrounder on Lehmann from a website called The 4th Media:

Dr. Christof Lehmann, born 1958 in West Germany, was Advisor for Research in Psycho-traumatology to Yassir Arafat and Survivor of the Sabra Shatila Massace in 1982, Doctoral Degree in Clinical Psychology in 1986, Advisor to Joshua Nkomo on the Impact of Torture and Psychological Trauma on Conflict Solution and Reconsiliation in Zimbabwe´s Politics in 1986-1990, Advisor to Nelson Mandela on Social Politics, Public Mental Health and the Effect of Psychological Trauma on Peace and Reconsiliation in 1994-1997. Dr. Lehmann is a Practicing Clinical Psychologist and has been actively advocating Palestinians Right to Statehood and Self Determination. In 2011 he began writing articles to contribute to breaking what he perceives as "The Embargo on Truth" by founding and running an independent webmedia: nsnbc.wordpress.com.

Lehmann's thesis in this recently published article is that NATO is going to initiate a worldwide "conventional" war. This runs counter to our belief that the elites have few choices when it comes to war as a sociopolitical transformer because of nuclear weapons. Nonetheless, we note the obvious ratcheting up of military action around the world. Unfortunately, it makes such military madness far more feasible.

The Anglosphere power elite has in aggregate been acting like a maddened dog in heat; there is no explaining multiple wars in the Middle East and Africa without attributing it to deliberate policy. NATO and the US are involved in at least seven wars in the Middle East currently, and the wars in many places are escalating, not diminishing.

In one way or another America/NATO is involved in wars, or at least significant military activity, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Uganda and Libya. Emergent spheres of expanded military activity include Pakistan and Syria.

This is the proximate result of a rule change at the highest levels. In 2005, the elites struck down The Treaty of Westphalia, which had put a stop to the religious wars in 1648 by emphasizing the primacy of the nation state.

The deed was actually done by the UN's Security Council. In its place was adopted R2P, Responsibility to Protect, which mandates that the "West" in aggregate interfere with a nation's sovereignty in order to to "protect" citizens.

As a result, NATO and America are now embroiled in military actions in numerous parts of the globe. This is not in our view "coincidence." But Lehmann's perspective is that this is only a prelude to an even larger and more comprehensive war.

Ordinarily, we'd write Lehmann off as something of a crank. But the Anglosphere power elite, obsessed with creating world government, has changed the rules and become far more aggressive of late in terms of using military power. We certainly would grant the possibility of a war against Iran, or an expand theatre of war in the Middle East that turns military skirmishes into full-blown Pentagon aggression.

There is something else as well. Muammar Gaddafi's death in Libya was not merely noted by the mainstream media; it was actively celebrated, including video of Hillary Clinton's delighted cackling over Gaddafi’s evident lynching, painfully delineated. Seemingly dozens of videos charted every bloody detail of his death.

This is no coincidence in our view but an emergent dominant social theme having to do with the Anglosphere's determination to change the frame of reference regarding war.

The Western mainstream media has treated military bloodshed with extreme repugnance over the past half-century. But all that is evolving now. The elites seem to be conducting a desensitizing exercise to make people accept a much higher threshold of violence, and even to revel in it. Here's some more from Lehmann's article:

The armed forces of NATO, Russia and China have never been as close to open and all out conflict as today. A recent and sobering report of the Russian Intelligence Service FSB, details the fact that the USA and NATO are currently planning and actively preparing for all out war on all continents. After the recent meeting between Russian P.M. Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Huan Jintao, both Russian and Chinese military forces have been placed on highest alert ...

Before leaving for Beijing, Putin received a sobering report from the Russian Intelligence Service FSB. The FSB report to Vladimir Putin supported reports from the Chinese Intelligence Service and China´s Ministry of State Security, MSS, which were among other based on intelligence received via the former Blackwater operative Brian Underwood. Underwood is currently held in the US on charges of espionage.

One of the preparatory stages was reportedly doctrinal and strategy changes wherein the training of its soldiers shifted from counter insurgency to more conventional warfare and tank on tank battles ... The FSB evaluates the situation as so threatening, that it explains in its report, that the only thing needed to activate the war plan is a call for the full mobilization of 1.5 Million US Reserves. Their activation can come at moments notice, and needs no further authorization by the US Congress.

The US plans for global dominance date back to as early as 1998 and the "Project for a New American Century, PNAC". One of the think tanks members, former US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, warned in September 2001, that if the war fails to significantly alter the worlds geopolitical map, the US will not achieve its aim to become the worlds only ad dominant superpower.

There are two major historical trends here from what we can tell. One is the Greater Recession itself, which is harrying elite economic structures. People are losing faith in the system, and this is a danger to elites plans and their use of economic terrorism to build ever-greater global governance.

The second historical trend is the oft-mentioned intention of the Anglosphere elite itself to do whatever is necessary to create a one-world order. It is not enough simply to introduce chaos into the world. One must generate war as well, presumably a much larger conflict than that which is occurring now.

Conclusion: Again, we have no idea if Lehmann's reports are correct, or if they are a kind of alarmism or outright disinformation. But they certainly raise interesting questions about the level of Western bellicosity and the reasons for its existence. Unfortunately, it is impossible at this point to discount the reality of what the West is up to. And it's not really the West anyway: It's the Anglosphere power elite and its great central banking families evidently racing to fulfill their world-spanning goals before the Internet Reformation fully exposes these designs.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Iraq War’s Lessons and War on Libya

 

"The war in Iraq has meant the death of more than 4,400 U.S. troops and come at a cost of more than $700 billion." CBSNews.com report

In Libya case, "America spent $2 billion and didn't lose a single life. This is more the prescription for how to deal with the world as we go forward than it has in the past." Biden comparing the regime change unfolding in Libya with the Bush administration's approach to Iraq.

"Thanks" to Nato Brothers, "The real Libyans" and their International Friends

In Case You Missed it:

• AMERICA MUST ATTACK GADDAFI NOW! by Gordaffi
• The West is doing the right thing in Libya by a "real" libyan
• Time For Regime Change in Palestine - by a "Palestian" a*shole

BTW, The amount Paid by the US during th 8 months war on Libya can hardly cover the expenses of two weeks in Iraq. 

Now meet Jim W. Dean – The VT DEAN who have "so many old Intel people here, (EX-CIA and there....who may have participated in old Gaddafi assassination Plots.) spotting shills, or at least the smell of them, is a finely hone occupational talent.", introducing, Uri Aveney, the Old settler, whose career starts with the 40′s the terrorist organization, the Irgun, and ended according to Dean a true blue a peacenik as you can find on the planet"

But the "Salomnik" worried because "Obama on the wrong side of history, Uri is not?" worried  because Egypt will change his lives
The Salomnick who imagined "posters condemning Binyamin al-Assad and Bashar Netanyahu." should rejoice the death of Gaddafi, most likey because Gaddafi called for ISRATINE

Iraq War’s Lessons Lost on US

by Ramzy Baroud, October 29, 2011

        

 In a White House Statement on Oct. 21, U.S. President Barack Obama pledged that his country would finally withdraw forces from Iraq. "After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over," he said.
Providing some context to Obama’s announcement, a published on the same day stated, "The war in Iraq has meant the death of more than 4,400 U.S. troops and come at a cost of more than $700 billion."

The U.S. media is now failing to process any facts aside from the losses suffered by the United States, which wrought war and destruction on a country in urgent need of peace and humanitarian assistance. For over a decade prior to the war, Iraq was reeling under U.S.-led U.N. sanctions, which left the country’s infrastructure in a state of near collapse.

In her introduction to former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark’s important book, "The Impact of Sanctions on Iraq: The Children Are Dying," Sara Flounders wrote, "Sanctions are a weapon of mass destruction. Since sanctions were imposed on Iraq, half a million children under the age of five have died of malnutrition and preventable diseases. Sanctions impose artificial famine. A third of Iraq’s surviving children today have stunted growth and nutritional deficiencies that will deform their shortened lives."

In 1999, I was one of those who directly witnessed the impact of the sanctions on Iraqi children. I came back from the country with heaps of photos and memories that haunt me to this day. Oddly enough, it was not sanctions as "a weapon of mass destruction" that inspired action to end the siege, but alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that invited another disaster to an already devastated nation.
It might take us years to truly understand the magnitude of what has since transpired in Iraq. Death and destruction have hovered over the country, killing and wounding hundreds of thousands, sending millions into exile and millions more have been classified by U.N. agencies as Internally Displaced Persons (IDP). It was a horror show that cannot be captured with the language of reason, but every moment of it was experienced by millions of ordinary people, punished severely for a crime they never committed.

The last U.S. forces will depart the country by Jan. 1 "with their heads held high, proud of their success," according to Obama. This is the very president who, in a speech in Cairo on June 4, 2009, stated that "unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice." What is there to be proud of in a devastating war of choice, Mr. President?

Before the U.S. House of Representatives on Jan. 18, 2007, Texas Congressman Ron Paul — presently running for the Republican presidential nomination — fittingly remarked, "Cliches about supporting the troops are designed to distract us from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war. Anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons (for) the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon."

But it is ending, simply because it was militarily unwinnable, financially unsustainable and politically indefensible. "Supporting the troops," however, will continue to serve as an escape route for those who still refuse to discuss the Iraq war from a moral and legal viewpoint. For them, it is essential that the cover-up persists, so as not to deny the U.S. the opportunity to instigate other wars of choice whenever suitable.
In a press briefing shortly following Obama’s end-of-war announcement, Antony Blinken, national security advisor to Vice President Joe Biden, remarked on whether the war was worth it. He answered, "history is going to have to judge."

But Iraqis don’t need to wait for U.S. history books to demonstrate to them the depth of their tragedy. The Lancet survey had already determined that between March 2003 and June 2006, 601,027 Iraqis died violent deaths. Opinion Research Business survey said that 1,033,000 died as a result of the conflict from March 2003 to August 2007. In one single revelation, WikiLeaks stated that "its release of nearly 400,000 classified U.S. files on the Iraq war showed 15,000 more Iraqi civilians died than previously thought."

Equally important is the fact that the violent mentality that insists on war — as opposed to diplomacy — to further U.S. interests is still deeply rooted among U.S. elites. Reporting from Washington, Jim Lobe recently wrote, "Key neoconservatives and other rightwing hawks who championed the 2003 United States invasion of Iraq are calling for military strikes against Iran in retaliation for its purported murder-for-hire plot against the Saudi ambassador here."

Blogging for Foreign Policy website on Oct. 21, Dalia Dassa Kaye wrote, "The martial rhetoric from inveterate hawks was predictable. But even President Obama suggested that the United States would not take any ‘options off the table,’ a phrase that is understood to leave open military options."
The rhetoric buildup for another conflict received a big boost during Leon Panetta’s first visit to Iraq as U.S. defense secretary on July 1. He said then that his country "will act ‘unilaterally’ to confront what he said were Iranian threats to U.S. interests in Iraq." The U.S. was "very concerned about Iran and the weapons they are providing to extremists here in Iraq," he said.

It will not be easy to reconcile Panetta’s comments with Obama’s end-of-war announcement, which states that "Iraqis have taken full responsibility for their country’s security" and that the relationship between the U.S. and Iraq will be that "between sovereign nations, an equal partnership based on mutual interest and mutual respect."

There are no signs of the neoconservatives altering their views. The appetite for conflict also seems well and alive among Washington’s influential elites, who still brazenly propagate that the U.S. war brought good to Iraqi society, despite all evidence to the contrary.

The official website for the U.S. Forces in Iraq, USF-Iraq.com, is adorned by the following statement under the banner, The New Face of Iraq: "The nation of Iraq has undergone sweeping political, economical and social changes since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Elected officials are now in power, overseeing the continued development of security, infrastructure, education, security and finance."

With that apparent "success" in mind, the neocons can always advocate another military intervention or full scale invasion, whenever possible and affordable.
"The tide of war is receding," said Obama. One has serious doubts.

Israel: ‘Hamas has Qaddafi’s missiles’

Posted on October 30, 2011 by rehmat1

Israeli daily Ha’aretz reported on October 27, 2011 that large numbers of high quality Russian-made anti-missiles looted from Libyan army storage facilities by the pro-US rebels fighting along with National Transitional Council (NTC) have been sold to Palestinian Islamic Resistance Hamas.
“The improved quality of anti-aircraft missiles held by Hamas in Gaza is increasingly worrying the Israeli defense establishment. Hamas recently managed to smuggle relatively advanced Russian missiles, which were looted from Libyan military warehouses, into the Gaza Strip. Israel is worried about the presence of the missiles, both because they curb the air force’s almost unlimited freedom of movement over Gaza today, and because of their possible use against civil aviation in Eilat,” wrote Amos Harel.
Israel-Firster Hillary Clinton during her visit to Libya last week – had offered $30 million to NTC in an attempt to stop Qaddafi’s arms falling into hands of Hamas, Hizbullah or Somali Al-Shabaab an Islamic Resistance group in Southern Somalian Juba region, which is fighting US-installed government in Mogadishu.
The Zionist media mafia is now telling its American sheep that the smuggled Libyan missiles (if the rant is really based on some proofs), are more dangerous to Israelis than Israel’s 240-400 Jewish bombs to Gaza and the rest of the Muslim East.
Interestingly, the poor Jewish target receives $3 billion military aid per year from US taxpayers (60% of Iran’s total military budget) while Hamas is under US-Israel-EU embargo.
After receiving it soldier Gilad Shalit from Hamas – Israel has restarted its normal air-strikes against Gaza population. Yesterday, an Israeli air raid killed six Palestinians and injured 11 others in Rafah.
On Thursday, an Israeli aircraft carried out three bombing attacks on the city of Khan Yunes in Gaza. No causalities were reported in the attack. On October 1, three Palestinians were injured in an Israeli drone attack on the town of Beit Hanoun in northern Gaza.
I wonder what happened to 10,000 drums of Qaddafi’s famous Yellowcake hoax founded by Libyan rebels as reported by British daily The Telegraph on September 25, 2011? May be Iranian FM Ali-Akbar Salehi purchase some of those ‘Yellocake’ drums during his coming visit to Libya. They will become very handy for Hizbullah during future Israeli attacks on Lebanon, Syria or Iran.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Foreign Intervention: Debating the Taboo of the Syrian Opposition

Haitham al-Maleh (L), president of the Syrian National Salvation Congress and Abdul Razak Eid (R), president for the national council of Damascus declaration abroad during a press conference on 10 October 2011 at the CAPE, a foreign press center in Paris. (Photo: AFP - Michel Gangne)

By: Ernest Khoury

Published Saturday, October 29, 2011

Paris - In Syria, the mere mention of foreign intervention is enough to divide the opposition into warring camps. This is at least how things appear on the surface. Close examination of the Syrian opposition parties’ positions, however, reveals that there is not that much difference between them.
The term ‘foreign intervention’ is interpreted differently, depending on who you talk to in the opposition. It ranges from urging foreign powers to put pressure on the regime to demanding direct military action. But the significance of such distinctions is lost on some prominent opposition figures in Paris, such as Haytham Manna, a leading member of the National Coordination Committee (NCC). He insists that anyone who mentions foreign intervention is a traitor, and that includes members of the Syrian National Council (SNC).
Perhaps the Libyan precedent, which started out as a UN resolution calling for “intervention to protect civilians” and ended with NATO bombardment of Libyan cities, is an obstacle to serious debate. While some in the opposition have come to the conclusion that there is no way of bringing about the fall of the Syrian regime without foreign assistance, others fear that the mere mention of international support is a breach of Syrian sovereignty and a prelude to the bombardment of Syria, and perhaps its occupation.
The opposition in Syria that is recognized by the regime is dismissed as mere window dressing by the opposition in Paris. One of them is Qadri Jamil, the secretary-general of the National Committee for Unity of Syrian Communists. For him, any mention of protecting civilians by a foreign force will necessarily lead to the occupation of Syria. According to Jamil, the SNC is unpatriotic because “it demands military intervention to protect civilians.” This is a position that is also shared by ‘unrecognized’ opposition members such as Haytham Manna. This is the extreme side of those who refuse to even mention any external solutions for the Syrian problem.
There is also the opposite extreme camp, represented by prominent opposition members such as Haitham al-Maleh, or some obscure ones such as the journalist Fahd al-Masri, who used to work for media organizations owned by the ex-vice president, Rifaat Assad. For them, military intervention is not just a possibility, it is practically a demand. They believe that the Syrian regime will not fall without it and that Syrian lives cannot be protected in any other way. So while al-Masri, who lives in Paris, insists that unconditional military intervention should take place, al-Maleh, who comes from an Islamist background, describes his position as part of a simple mathematical equation, stating that foreign military intervention against the regime remains, despite all its problems, better than the survival of the Assad regime. Al-Maleh says that this is particularly true because the air strikes associated with this intervention “will not hit civilians, they will target the regime institutions,” and therefore “destroying stones is better than killing people,” (as the regime does).
Between these two camps, some prominent opposition members, including members of the National Council and the National Coordination Committee, believe that the debate on the possibility of a military intervention is essentially being carried out in the wrong way. For example, the veteran opposition member Michel Kilo believes that the Syrian people cannot agree to any military intervention or to an occupation of their country, and therefore the issue is not even a possibility. Alternately, leaders of the National Council, such as Dr. Burhan Ghalioun and Dr. Bassma Kodmani, believe that forces of foreign intervention, be it the West in general or Turkey, or both, are not prepared to carry out a war or to pay its bills. They therefore believe that discussion of this issue distracts the debate and serves as a chimera that benefits the regime’s survival and facilitates its accusations of treason against millions of adversaries. This is why their official position, at least that of the National Council, insists that peaceful foreign intervention in Syria should serve a specific and limited end. That end is to strengthen the pressure of the country’s widening protest movements on the regime and cause massive divisions in the political and military apparatus which would lead to the regime’s downfall.
Kilo reminds us that the Syrian opposition warned the regime at the beginning of this crisis that the use of violence to solve a political problem would “open the door to foreign intervention. The same goes for sending the army to the Turkish, Lebanese, Iraqi, and Jordanian borders because this will necessarily cause the intervention of these countries.” Kilo adds, “Today, there is no one who is not interfering in Syrian affairs, including Hezbollah, Iran, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, America, China, Russia, even the Phalangists (being ironic) and the Islamists in Tripoli. Syria no longer has any sovereignty. If the regime carries on with its current policies, then the crisis will lead to yet more foreign intervention.” Kilo thinks, “The regime never enjoyed internal legitimacy, it has always relied on external legitimacies to survive. When it lost this external legitimacy, it did not seek to foster other internal ones. In fact, it tried and is still trying to look for a new foreign cover. Therefore, what we need is Arab help to protect us and not foreign intervention.”
Fayez Sara agrees with his colleague Kilo. He insists that the only unacceptable form of foreign intervention is military. This notion can be considered as a joining of the dots with the opposition from the National Council, whose position is summarized by Ghalioun, when he says that the Council is confident that foreign pressure, in the form of positions, statements, sanctions, Arab and international observers and foreign media, is essential for protecting civilians and not to the overthrow of the regime, because this task is the responsibility of Syrians themselves.
But it is well known that the rejection of any military intervention by the officials in the National Council is not agreed upon by all its members. This exposes internal differences of this opposition body, who only agree on the need to overthrow the regime. One of the main sides in the Council, the Muslim Brotherhood, has a completely different discourse than Ghalioun and Kodmani, for example. This is why members of the council, such as Farouk Taifour, Najib al-Ghadban and their secretary-general, Muhammad Riyad al-Shaqfa, have no qualms about taking positions that are contradictory to those announced by the official spokespeople of the Council. They have proclaimed that military intervention is imminent and that Turkey will play a role in it, particularly in enforcing the no-fly zone on Syrian military jets and imposing an arms-free zone. Perhaps they hope to create a Syrian Benghazi to act as a launching pad for the regime’s overthrow.
Because the concept of international protection and its implementation is a delicate and sensitive matter, members of the SNC are working hard to find a new interpretation that will prevent the regime from continuing its repression, on the one hand, and avoid military intervention on the Libyan scale, on the other, according to Kodmani. The spokeswoman for the Council says that “faced with these complications, we have to find other means of support and foreign protection which are different from the Libyan experience... The situation is difficult because the principle of protecting civilians was implemented in Libya for the first time in history. But we have to invent other ways of implementing it in Syria by looking at historical precedents other than military intervention in the Libyan example. This could be in the form of protected areas or humanitarian corridors, where there is no room for the military element...”
Parties allied to the council, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, have publicly called for military intervention. The council spokeswoman thinks this is because the Brotherhood wants to “be in tune with feelings on the street which call for military intervention.” She realizes that the SNC wants a conciliatory solution to this issue. “We know that the street wants military intervention, which we and the international community reject.”
Kodmani’s assertion that uprising Syrians want military intervention to rid them of Assad and are pressuring the council to act opens up new contradictions. In Paris, they say that the people who are protesting in the streets know the situation on the ground better. They have decided what they want and they understand that the regime cannot be overthrown without military intervention. This is a hypothesis that is confirmed by one Paris activist now exiled for decades. They even go as far as insisting that “the reason for establishing the National Council was just to find a party to demand foreign intervention and international protection.” The same activist says that people in Syria want military intervention, but he thinks that talking about military intervention is just a threat, “because when the regime feels that the world wants to intervene, it will fall.”
But if it is true that Syrian protesters want military intervention, there is a big dilemma for opposition parties. If they do not call for this intervention, then they do not reflect the demands or the spirit of the Syrian revolution. But if the opposition calls for military intervention publicly, whether they call it international protection or civilian protection, they will appear to a large sector of Syrians and non-Syrians as if they are urging the destruction of their country and even its occupation, as everyone agrees that the ‘international community’ is just a cover for Western interests. What could start with simple steps under the banner of civilian protection in a sensitive country like Syria could turn quickly into assassination, partition, instability, hegemony and a redrawing of the map of the region.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Islamic Jihad Says Israel Martyred Six Fighters, Vows Revenge

The Palestinian Islamic Jihad announced that six Islamic Jihad fighters were killed in an Israeli air raid on Gaza on Saturday, the Palestinian organization said, warning of a retaliation.

The fighters were members of the group's armed wing, Al-Quds Brigades, at a training camp near Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip. Medics confirmed the death toll.

An Israeli army spokesman, contacted by AFP, said the air force carried out a raid on Gaza but declined to give further details.

An Al-Quds Brigades commander, Ahmed al-Sheikh Khalil, was among the fighters killed in the air strike, according to the Islamic Jihad. The group also pledged to "respond" to the raid.



River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian