Andrew Gavin Marshall: Are We Witnessing the Start of a Global Revolution?

                                                  Cairo downtown protest January 29 2011


By Andrew Gavin Marshall

January 27, 2011

For the first time in human history almost all of humanity is politically activated, politically conscious and politically interactive... The resulting global political activism is generating a surge in the quest for personal dignity, cultural respect and economic opportunity in a world painfully scarred by memories of centuries-long alien colonial or imperial domination... 

The worldwide yearning for human dignity is the central challenge inherent in the phenomenon of global political awakening... That awakening is socially massive and politically radicalizing... The nearly universal access to radio, television and increasingly the Internet is creating a community of shared perceptions and envy that can be galvanized and channeled by demagogic political or religious passions. These energies transcend sovereign borders and pose a challenge both to existing states as well as to the existing global hierarchy, on top of which America still perches...

The youth of the Third World are particularly restless and resentful. The demographic revolution they embody is thus a political time-bomb, as well... Their potential revolutionary spearhead is likely to emerge from among the scores of millions of students concentrated in the often intellectually dubious "tertiary level" educational institutions of developing countries. Depending on the definition of the tertiary educational level, there are currently worldwide between 80 and 130 million "college" students. 

Typically originating from the socially insecure lower middle class and inflamed by a sense of social outrage, these millions of students are revolutionaries-in-waiting, already semi-mobilized in large congregations, connected by the Internet and pre-positioned for a replay on a larger scale of what transpired years earlier in Mexico City or in Tiananmen Square. Their physical energy and emotional frustration is just waiting to be triggered by a cause, or a faith, or a hatred...

[The] major world powers, new and old, also face a novel reality: while the lethality of their military might is greater than ever, their capacity to impose control over the politically awakened masses of the world is at a historic low. To put it bluntly: in earlier times, it was easier to control one million people than to physically kill one million people; today, it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people.[1] Continue read here

URL of this article: Global Research

MI6 offered to detain Hamas figures

British government also provided financial support for two Fatah security forces linked to torture.

Fatah security forces routinely arrest members of Hamas in the West Bank [EPA]   By Gregg Carlstrom Last Modified: 25 Jan 2011 19:35 GMT

The Palestine Papers reveal that the British government played a significant role in equipping and funding the Palestinian security forces,several of which have been linked to torture and other abuses.

The "rendition plan"

More unbelievably, the UK’s MI-6 intelligence service proposed detaining members of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, an extraordinary – and illegal – scheme in which the European Union would have paid for their detention.
Under the heading “degrading the capabilities of the rejectionist groups,” the MI-6 document suggests:
    "... the disruption of their leaderships' communications and command and control capabilities; the detention of key middle-ranking officers; and the confiscation of their arsenals and financial resources held within the Occupied Territories. US and - informally - UK monitors would report both to Israel and to the Quartet. We could also explore the temporary internment of leading Hamas and PIJ figures, making sure they are welltreated, with EU funding."
An appendix to the document outlines how the British government might help the Palestinian Authority. It includes British plans to seize firearms and rockets from the West Bank and Gaza; to cut off funding to “rejectionist groups” like Hamas; and to reduce weapons smuggling through tunnels into Gaza.
It is difficult to say which of these ideas were actually put into practice. But two subsequent documents from the following year suggest that, at the very least, the British government provided funding for Palestinian security forces.
A document from the British foreign office provides “a synopsis of the project work that the UK is engaged in with the Palestinian Security Forces.” It documents hundreds of thousands of dollars in security assistance to the PA.
Of particular note are two $90,000 allocations, one to the Preventive Security force, the other to the General Intelligence Service.
Both have been linked to widespread human rights abuses in the occupied territories. Human Rights Watch (HRW) reported in July 2008 that Preventive Security had carried out most of the arrests of Hamas activists in the West Bank. “Many of the arrests were unlawful,” the group reported, “and arrested individuals sometimes encountered maltreatment at the time of arrest or torture during interrogation.” General Intelligence was also linked to cases of torture.
“The most abusive forces, local groups say, are the Preventive Security or General Intelligence Service. Most of the abuses documented in this report were committed by one of those two forces,” HRW concluded.
In a statement to Al Jazeera, the British foreign office said it takes allegations of torture "extremely seriously."
[Foreign office minister Alistair] Burt raised the issue of human rights abuses when he met [Palestinian prime minister Salam] Fayyad last week and asked for a concrete assurance that allegations would be investigated and appropriate actions taken. PM Fayyad gave this."   Aljazeera  

Palestine Papers Related: Erekat; "I can't stand Hamas" ! For Fatah, the Annapolis process seems to have been as much about crushing Hamas as about ending Israel's occupation.   _____________________

Down with …. Long Live the Palestinian Authority

By Dr. Mohsen Mohammad Saleh

There have been plenty of discussions lately about the usefulness of the Palestinian Authority (PA). Many leaders in the PA and Palestinian Liberalization Organization (PLO) are in deep state of frustration because the PA can’t lead anymore to a Palestinian state, and because Israel emptied the peace process of its contents.

The PA, which was established in 1994, hoped for becoming an independent state in the West Bank (WB) and Gaza Strip (GS) within five years. It hoped for the settlement of the final status issues such as future of the refugees, Jerusalem, the Jewish settlements, borders, and the scope of its sovereignty on its soil… . Yet, no binding timetable for a final resolution has been set for Israel, nor for its withdrawal from the WB and the GS.

There was also no binding international mechanism for forcing Israel to fulfill its obligations. The agreement between the two parties has resulted in a bizarre situation, since it dealt with some details before dealing with the core problem. It was binding to only one party, allowed the consolidation of the occupation rather than ending it, and put the responsibility of dealing with daily matters on the "imprisoned," with the possibility of being deprived, thwarted, suppressed, destructed and confiscated at any moment.

For 17 years, the PA kept running after the "carrot" of the final solution. It solved nothing of what was expected, and no good news concerning the Oslo Accords or the Road Map could convince the frustrated Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims.

The Palestinian people feel the deep crisis that the PA faces, but there is discrepancy in dealing with it. However, for almost a year now, there is an increased talk about dissolving the PA, as one of the options, although it doesn’t take precedence over other options.

“Down with the PA”

Supporters of dissolving or toppling the PA believe that it has run its course and that it is no longer the suitable feasible means for establishing the Palestinian state and securing the Israeli withdrawal. They warn about the erosion of the PA’s national role to the benefit of serving Israeli issues, especially security ones… Hence, there is no choice but to dissolve the PA when taking into consideration:

1. The necessity to put an end to the futility of Oslo and the Road Map tracks, after it has become certain that these tracks are inefficient, and incapable of binding the Israeli part with anything.

2. The establishment of the PA has ended the Israeli military rule but didn’t end the occupation itself. It has made the negotiations seem to be between two states or authorities rather between the occupation and the occupied people. It engaged in managing the daily and living matters, while the occupation has turned into a "clean colonization," or into a "deluxe" colonization according to Israeli writer Meron Benvenisti, and the former head of military intelligence Major General Shlomo Gazit. Besides, while the PA takes the responsibility of all the "dirty work," and the Palestinians suppress the Resistance forces with their own hands, and while the ugly face of the occupation hides, the occupation enjoys comfortable situation, and continues ruthlessly the colonization, Judaization, confiscation of the territories and imposing new realities on the ground. Hence, there is a necessity to end the PA’s functional role which serves Israeli agendas rather than pursuing national ones.

3. The need to make the Israeli occupation, rather than the Palestinian party, take full legal, political, economic, social and health responsibilities for the occupied Palestinian people. This is the case as as long as the Israeli part doesn't consider the withdrawal seriously but rather looks only for agents or cover for his occupation.

4. The international community must be aware of their responsibilities. The peace process has failed, the Palestinian people are still under occupation, have the right to resist and gain independence, and have the right to self-determination according to international laws and conventions.

5. The PA is not an arm for PLO anymore, rather it became an arm for the occupation. It has disarmed itself of its strategic means and alternatives through "renouncement of violence," and through striking and persecuting the resistance, even if that would lead to the erosion of national unity, and rupturing the social texture of the Palestinian people. Whereas the PLO has turned into a dim shadow subordinate to the PA. It is necessary by all means to retrieve the national and efficient role of the PLO, since it embraces the Palestinian national project, which includes all the factions and influential people in the Palestinian society.

6. Clearing the way for imposing new conditions on the political game with Israel, after the current conditions have proved their ineffectiveness.

7. Clearing the way for the establishment of a resistant authority that lives under occupation and lets it bear its responsibilities. This authority would give up external appearances, while focusing on challenging and ending this occupation. Thus, following the steps of the blessed first intifadah 1987–1993.

8. Ending corruption appearances in the Palestinian society; such as the PA’s administrative and financial corruption, collaboration with the occupation, dependence on international aid, and seeking artificial well-being under occupation.

9. Israel and the US will only agree on a Palestinian entity in WB if it is under Oslo conditions, whereas there are large segments of the Palestinian people (Islamists, leftist… etc) whichrefuse such entity. Therefore, having a true national unity and putting the Palestinian political house in order will happen only if the Oslo conditions were overlooked, or the conditions upon which the PA was built were overlooked. This would eventually put an end to the continuing schism or dissolve the PA itself.

“Long live the PA”

According to those who support retaining the PA, it is too early to dissolve this entity. There is still some room to build on accomplishments and to reform flaws if any. Here are their most significant arguments:

1. The Palestinian people have succeeded in establishing many realities on the ground through the establishment of national authority. The PA employs tens of thousands of personnel in various ministries and apparatuses that represent the infrastructure of the hoped for state. The Palestinians gained an Israeli and American recognition of their right to build their own state in WB and GS, regardless of its area and jurisdiction. Moreover, the PA serves Palestinian interests according to a national agenda, and enjoys the recognition and cooperation of the whole world. These gains shouldn't be wasted.

2. To dissolve the PA means resuming Israeli occupation and its control over all aspects of life. Thus, giving it more freedom to pursue its agenda, and giving it a free hand without restrictions.

3. To dissolve the PA means that Palestinians admit that they have failed to govern themselves. That will assert the Israeli occupation claims that the Palestinians do not deserve an independent state.

4. The PA is a temporary transitional means towards independence and creation of their state. Regardless of Israeli evasiveness, the international community and even the United States is eventually committed to establishing the Palestinian state. The peace settlement process hasn’t exhausted its purposes yet, as long as there is Arabic, Islamic and International communities adopting it. Hence, the door of opportunity must not be closed, for this could prevent building the Palestinian state for years to come.

5. Even if the PA is dissolved, there is no other realistic and actual convincing alternatives for the Palestinians to adopt, and that can be also acceptable to Arabic and international communities.

6. The very idea of dissolving the PA requires Palestinian national agreement, especially within its twin pillars, Fatah and Hamas. It requires also putting the Palestinian political house in order, to be able to bear the consequences of such move, and propose new alternatives. But without such agreement, the dissolution of the PA will not happen.

7. To dissolve the PA means cutting off international aid, that amounts to millions of dollars. It will bring much of the projects and works to a halt, and tens of thousands of employees will lose their means of living.

Fatah Movement: “Long Live the PA, but”

The official Fatah position still supports the PA, although some officials speak with bitterness about the dire situation the matters have reached. The statements which leaders of the Authority and Fatah issued about prospects of the PA’s dissolution are only expressions of discomfort or kind of threats or political pressure. There is no genuine and huge shift in the stances of Fatah ranks.

For sure, there is a state of deep frustration among top circles in Fatah. This was due to the stalemate peace process, the Israeli repealing of many national authority roles, and keeping the PA as a façade operating within frameworks that are acceptable to the occupation. Those who talked about PA’s dissolution option include President ‘Abbas, Sa’ib ‘Uraiqat, Nabil Sha‘th, Ahmad Qurei‘, Muhammad Ishtayeh, Jamal Muheisen, and many others. On the other hand, there are some officials in Fatah and the Authority who stress on excluding PA’s dissolution option, such as Salam Fayyad, Muhammad Dahlan and Jibril al-Rajoub.

Hamas Movement: “Down with the PA, but”

Hamas opposed and still oppose the Oslo agreement. The movement even opposed the establishment of the PA and continued its resistance against the occupation. Hamas dealt realistically with this Authority which is in fact one of Oslo agreement outcomes. Although some leaders in Hamas called for the establishment of an authority that commits itself to resistance and not to Oslo framework, Hamas didn’t adopt a final official stance that calls for toppling or dismantling the Authority in Ramallah.

Although the PA has become a fact, Hamas chose to participate at the political level. It wanted to alter the functional role of the PA, i.e., to be supportive to the resistance, and it wanted also to fight corruption and serve the Palestinian people.

Hamas made use of the legislative elections, a means offered by the PA, so as to demonstrate the public legitimacy of the resistance movement, after it had demonstrated the legitimacy of its struggle during al-Aqsa intifadah. Besides, Hamas tried to join and administer PA institutions through the tenth and eleventh government, but refused the terms of the Oslo agreement, the recognition of Israel, as well as ending the resistance. Hamas desire to play the game according to its rules lead to the siege, attempts to topple its government, the detention of its members of parliament, and the closure of its institutions in WB.

Despite the harsh blockade imposed on GS, Hamas used its public legitimacy and its military capability to impose its terms. It exceeded the ceiling of Oslo agreement and the ceiling put for the PA’s performance, benefiting from the Israeli withdrawal from GS. As a result, a regime has formed which doesn't abide by the military rule or the occupation, doesn't depend on foreign aid and assistance which are offered on political and security conditions, and doesn't coordinate with the occupation. The regime settles internal disputes in cooperation with national factions, and adopts the choice of resistance. Thus, Hamas managed to transform the approach adopted by the Authority, and not necessarily staged a coup against it in GS.

Hamas considers that Fatah dominates the PLO and the PA leadership in Ramallah, thus, it is the main player in dissolving the PA. Hamas considers that the Authority can not be dissolved without national agreement, without which there would be an internal strife and further complications for the Palestinian situation.

Questions that Need Answers

All the Palestinian factions (especially Fatah and Hamas) will find themselves, sooner or later, compelled to give clear answers to a number of questions that are related to the future of the Palestinian Authority, notably:

. With respect to Fatah and other factions in favor of a peace settlement: To what extent can they continue supporting such authority that achieves Occupation objectives more than it achieves national project objectives?

. With respect to Hamas and factions supporting resistance: If it turns out that reform and transformation program can not be implemented under occupation, and that leading the PA in WB is unfeasible without halting the resistance program, and that even if they win the elections, the series of events regarding not recognizing Israel, blockade, persecution, thwarting would be resumed; So, is it suitable to repeat the same scenarios presented in the reconciliation papers, especially those related to the elections and administering the PA under occupation? Or should they reconsider the priorities of putting the Palestinian political house in order?

. With respect to all Palestinian factions: How can they transform other alternatives into useful and viable ones, such as resorting to resistance, and forming a resistance authority? Forcing the enemy to withdraw? Establishing full sovereign Palestinian state on its territories?

Translated by Al-Zaytouna Centre for Studies and Consultations
The original Arabic article appeared on Al Jazeera net on 24/1/2011  
______________________________

Archaeologists: 650 Babylonian cuneiform tablets document 8000 years of Syria’s history

.

Cuneiformed tablet

By H. Sabbagh

Wednesday, 26 January 2011 00:54

Syria (Hasaka) – Archaeological discoveries in the Tell Lilan site located 120 km northeast of Hasaka indicate to the historic significance of the site which dates back to the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC.

The site is located on one of the important ancient trade routes linking Cappadocia, Ashur and Anatolia principalities.

Excavations that have been carried out in various sectors in the site since 1978 show that the area was settled for the first time during the middle of the 6th millennium BC and continued until the late 1800's BC.

Expeditions uncovered pottery dating back to the Halaf period (6500–5500 BC) and the Ubaid period (6500-3800 BC), in addition to bell-shaped jars dating back to the Uruk period (4000-3100 BC).

Excavations uncovered an important human settlement dating back to the era of Nineveh. Pottery, serrated yellow cups, pedestals of colored statues, and cookware were discovered at the settlement.

The site covered 15 hectares during the first half of the 3rd millennium BC, and later witnessed a sudden boom in terms of population and civilized development during the middle of the 3rd millennium BC. During this era, a wall and a defensive system were established to protect the expanding housing areas, transforming the site from a tiny village to a city covering 90 hectares.

A temple was uncovered in the northeast side of the site. Its most distinct characteristics are its facades, twisting and ornate pillars, and a central hall surrounded by chambers on the eastern and western sides. Pottery, tablets and cylindrical seals bearing cuneiforms were found in the temple.

The castle found in the lower area of the site contained an archive of 650 cuneiform tablets written in the old Babylonian dialect, with the texts including administrative and economic texts, political messages and treaties that shed light on developments in the area following the fall of the city of Mari (circa 1759 BC).

According to texts found in Tel Lilan and other sites, the city was given the name Shubat Enlil which means "Home of Enlil" (Enlil being an ancient god) by Assyrian king Shamshi-Adad I. Before that, it was known as Shekhna, and this name was used again after the death of Shamshi-Adad I in 1776 BC. The city was destroyed by king Samsu-iluna of Babylon in 1728, and remained unoccupied since then.

(SANA)

The Palestine Preventive Security Forces interrogates Khalid Amayreh and Awadh Rfajoub

January 27 2011

The Palestinian journalists  Khalid Amayreh and Awadh Rajoub were briefly interrogated by the Preventive Security Force in Dura, south of Hebron, Thursday, in connection with their coverage of al-Jazeera documents revelations.

Amayreh said  he was interrogated for several  hours and was asked to return to the PSF  local headquarters again on Sunday, ostensibly for  further interrogation.

He described the interrogation as utterly illegal. He also urged the Palestinian Press union to do its utmost to prevent security agencies from  interfering with journalists'  work. (End)

 

الامن الوقائي يحقق مع الصحفيين خالد العمايرة  وعوض الرجوب  بشأن قضية وثائق الجزيرة

 حقق جهاز الامن الوقائي في مدينة دورا جنوب الضفة الغربية مع الصحفيين خالد العمايرة وعوض الرجوب بشأن بعض المقالات التي نشرت حول  موضوع الوثائق المسربة لقناة الجزيرة وذلك يوم الخميس 27 يناير.

وقد دام التحقيق عدة ساعات وطلب من الإثنين  مراجعة مقر الامن الوقائي مجددا يوم الاحد القادم الموافق 30 يناير.

وقال العمايرة ان التحقيق مخالف للقانون, مطالبا نقابة الصحفيين الفلسطينيين  بالعمل على حماية الصحفيين من تدخل الاجهزة في عملهم.

واضاف العمايرة انه انتظر ساعتين قبل مقابلة المسؤول لكنه لم يتعرض الى اي نوع من الأذى.

يذكر ان العمايرة  كتب مقالا نشر من  خلال شبكة الانترنت مؤخرا  بعنوان "لا تلوموا الجزيرة"  وقد تمحور الجزء الاكبر من التحقيق حول المقال المذكور.

وقد تعهدت السلطة الفلسطينية مرارا بمنع الاجهزة الامنية من التدخل في عمل الصحفيين  لكن السلطة لم تنجح  في كثير من الاحوال في  تنفيذ هذا التعهد على أرض الواقع.

(انتهى)

 ______________________

Israel Strikes Back

Aware of the future that awaits them, Zionists are becoming desperate and even more dangerous. An escalation of violence is assured until the full force of international law is turned on those who have long flaunted the law in pursuit of their extremist agenda.

January 25, 2011 6:34 PM

Jeff Gates

Timing is everything when waging war “by way of deception,” the motto that has long guided Israeli war-planners. Whenever Israel’s geopolitical goals are threatened, chaos is assured. In national security terminology, the January 24th bombing at Moscow’s busiest airport was “out of theater repositioning.”
 
First among Tel Aviv’s priorities is their need to maintain traction for the latest geopolitical narrative: a “global war on terrorism” against “Islamo-fascism.” The fact that America’s two latest wars serve Israeli goals remains largely unmentioned in Western media.

Six days prior to the Moscow bombing, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev traveled to the West Bank to endorse a Palestinian state with its capital East Jerusalem. He pointedly noted “this was the first visit of a Russian president to Palestine not united with a visit to another country” (Israel).

Then he joined a fast-lengthening list of nations confirming that, to date, 109 of 192 United Nations member countries support a resolution recognizing Palestinian statehood.

Though the U.S. reliably vetoes Security Council resolutions at Israel’s request, sentiments are shifting as a global public awakens to the costs of the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

Numerous Latin American nations recently extended recognition to Palestine. Ireland just announced an upgrade in its relationship to embassy status.

Out-of-Theatre Repositioning

When waging war from the shadows, Zionist war-planners concentrate their efforts on key variables. Thus the fear in Tel Aviv that emerging events are loosening control of the Israel lobby over U.S. foreign policy.

To sustain a global “war on terrorism,” instability must be sustained. Anyone familiar with the Israeli use of strategic duplicity found it unsurprising when multiple crises emerged “unexpectedly” in North Africa.

Unrest in Tunisia triggered a change in government followed by unrest in Mauritania, Algeria, Yemen and Egypt. During a recent Arab League meeting, Secretary-General Amr Mousa cautioned that the contagion could spread.

If so, look for the price of energy to soar, further weakening leaders in the debt-ridden West where restive populations already face fewer services, higher taxes —and more debt.

Misdirection also plays a role in such well-timed crises. Tel Aviv just released a report justifying Israel’s deadly boarding of a Turkish vessel last May in international waters carrying aid to Gaza. Yet a post-mortem found 30 Israeli bullets in the bodies of nine dead activists, including one shot four times in the head.

Akin to the 911 Commission Report that obscured the anti-Zionist motivation for that mass murder, news of this Israeli attack was obscured by reports of a bombing in Moscow and a leak that Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas secretly agreed to cede Palestinian land to Israel.

That well-timed leak weakened the Palestinian president while the bombing weakened the Russian president when this well-timed crisis forced his cancellation of a keynote address to world leaders at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

Multiple Motives

When deploying deceit to wage war, Zionists catalyze mental impressions meant to link events in the public’s mind. Thus the critical role of timing when advancing a thematic narrative such as The Clash of Civilizations.

These latest events heightened tensions worldwide as both fear and the requisite loathing were reinforced by yet another series of well-timed crises. When faced with the threat that its Islamo-fascist storyline is losing traction, what else can Zionists do?

Confronted with the possibility that the West may withdraw support for its six-decade occupation of Palestine, what is Tel Aviv to do? Facing the prospect of global censure for its murder of Turkish activists, how can Israel divert attention?

Tel Aviv is backed into a corner. Overwhelming evidence confirms that Zionists generated the false intelligence that induced the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Though the Israel lobby retains its control over U.S. lawmakers, the American public is fast realizing how many crises originate with those who consider themselves above the law.

To Betray, First Befriend

What are Americans to do when faced with a devious enemy—posing as an ally—whose operatives consider themselves Chosen by a god of their own choosing? With mainstream media dominated by those complicit in this duplicity, how can this chokehold be released?

As a duped electorate slowly awakens to how they were deceived—and by whom—how do Americans make amends for the damage done by their Israeli-compliant lawmakers?

Those determined to defeat this ‘enemy within’ must first make this treason transparent. As the common source of this corruption becomes apparent, accountability can commence.

Americans do not yet grasp that we have long been the target of ongoing capital crimes. Zionists know that our continued ignorance is the key to their continued impunity. With knowledge comes the power to prosecute those complicit. Therein lies the challenge.

Aware of the future that awaits them, Zionists are becoming desperate and even more dangerous. An escalation of violence is assured until the full force of international law is turned on those who have long flaunted the law in pursuit of their extremist agenda.

Jeff Gates is author of Guilt By Association – How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War. See www.criminalstate.com

________________

Editors note:

You don't fool around with the Russians - can be very cold when they want to !
BIG MISSTAKE !

Blackwater Founder Said to Back Mercenaries to Bolster the Somali Government

.

By Mark Mazzetti and Erik  Scmitt

January 20, 2011

Washington — Erik Prince, the founder of the international security giant Blackwater Worldwide, is backing an effort by a controversial South African mercenary firm to insert itself into Somalia’s bloody civil war by protecting government leaders, training Somali troops, and battling pirates and Islamic militants there, according to American and Western officials.

Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater, lives in the United Arab Emirates, which have an interest in curbing piracy.

The disclosure comes as Mr. Prince sells off his interest in the company he built into a behemoth with billions of dollars in American government contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan, work that mired him in lawsuits and investigations amid reports of reckless behavior by his operatives, including causing the deaths of civilians in Iraq. His efforts to wade into the chaos of Somalia appear to be Mr. Prince’s latest endeavor to remain at the center of a campaign against Islamic radicalism in some of the world’s most war-ravaged corners. Mr. Prince moved to the United Arab Emirates late last year.

With its barely functional government and a fierce hostility to foreign armies since the hasty American withdrawal from Mogadishu in the early 1990s, Somalia is a country where Western militaries have long feared to tread. The Somali government has been cornered in a small patch of Mogadishu by the Shabab, a Somali militant group with ties to Al Qaeda.

This, along with the growing menace of piracy off Somalia’s shores, has created an opportunity for private security companies like the South African firm Saracen International to fill the security vacuum created by years of civil war. It is another illustration of how private security firms are playing a bigger role in wars around the world, with some governments seeing them as a way to supplement overtaxed armies, while others complain that they are unaccountable.

Mr. Prince’s precise role remains unclear. Some Western officials said that it was possible Mr. Prince was using his international contacts to help broker a deal between Saracen executives and officials from the United Arab Emirates, which have been financing Saracen in Somalia because Emirates business operations have been threatened by Somali pirates.

According to a report by the African Union, an organization of African states, Mr. Prince provided initial financing for a project by Saracen to win contracts with Somalia’s embattled government.

A spokesman for Mr. Prince challenged this report, saying that Mr. Prince had “no financial role of any kind in this matter,” and that he was primarily involved in humanitarian efforts and fighting pirates in Somalia.

“It is well known that he has long been interested in helping Somalia overcome the scourge of piracy,” said the spokesman, Mark Corallo. “To that end, he has at times provided advice to many different anti-piracy efforts.”

Saracen International is based in South Africa, with corporate offshoots in Uganda and other countries. The company, which declined to comment, was formed with the remnants of Executive Outcomes, a private mercenary firm composed largely of former South African special operations troops who worked throughout Africa in the 1990s.

The company makes little public about its operations and personnel, but it appears to be run by Lafras Luitingh, a former officer in South Africa’s Civil Cooperation Bureau, an apartheid-era internal security force notorious for killing opponents of the government.

American officials have said little about Saracen since news reports about the company’s planned operations in Somalia emerged last month. Philip J. Crowley, a State Department spokesman, said in December that the American government was “concerned about the lack of transparency” of Saracen’s financing and plans.

For now, the Obama administration remains committed to bolstering Somalia’s government with about 8,000 peacekeeping troops from Burundi and Uganda operating under a United Nations banner.

Somali forces are also being trained in Uganda.

Saracen has yet to formally announce its plans in Somalia, and there appear to be bitter disagreements within Somalia’s fractious government about whether to hire the South African firm. Somali officials have said that Saracen’s operations — which would also include training an antipiracy army in the semiautonomous region of Puntland — are being financed by an anonymous Middle Eastern country.

Several people with knowledge of Saracen’s operations confirmed that that was the United Arab Emirates.

A spokesman for the Emirates’s Embassy in Washington declined to comment on Saracen or on Mr. Prince’s involvement in the company.

One person involved in the project, speaking on condition of anonymity because Saracen’s plans were not yet public, said that new ideas for combating piracy and battling the Shabab are needed because “to date, other missions have not been successful.”

At least one of Saracen’s past forays into training militias drew an international rebuke. Saracen’s Uganda subsidiary was implicated in a 2002 United Nations Security Council report for training rebel paramilitary forces in Congo.

Continue to read this article here

Jeffrey Gettleman contributed reporting from Mogadishu, Somalia.

______________________

Is an act of treason punishable by execution in Palestinian Law ?

By Hiyam Noir 

January 25 2010 

With regards to the Palestinian papers'- Al Quds (Jerusalem) ;

According to the Ramallah regime, it is necessary to prevent expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East al-Quds (Jerusalem).

In September 2010, the Ramallah regime, Palestinian Authority (PA), stressed that land sales to Israelis is a major crime punishable with a death sentence.The PA later reaffirmed the death penalty for Palestinians, which has been found guilty of selling land to Israelis and insisted that the Palestinian land law, with regards to land sales to Israelis is a major crime to be punished by execution.

Interestingly,the decree came right after the ruling by a Palestinian court, saying that such acts, selling land to the Israelis, are to be considered a minor offense.The PA Prosecutor General Ahmeal-Mughni,prompted swiftly  to appeal against the ruling to a higher court, arguing that the sale of land to Israelis, was a major offense punishable by death, the appeal was accepted.

The 'Law for Preventing the Sale of Real Estate to the Enemy' was originally put into effect by the Kingdom of Jordan between the years of 1948 and 1967.

During the Ramallah reign, Palestinian land has been eroded, given away, bartered or sold to the enemy.The Ramallah regime have never had legitimate power to act as real estate agents for Palestinian landowners. Mahmoud Abbas and Sa'eb Ereikat have never had the authorisation to sell the land and property of the Palestinian people.

The Ramallah regime of PA adopted the land law and announced that it would seek the death penalty for any Palestinian who threatened the state's security and prosperity by selling land to the Israelis.It drafted its own 'Property Law for Foreigners' which described the sale of land to "occupiers” as an act of “national treason.” However, Ramallah has so far refrained from executing those convicted of selling land to Israeli settlers.

Clearly defined,  the Ramallah regime has been criminal and illegitimate from beginning to the end.The Ramallah regime has committed acts of treachery and treason which have directly affected the secure building of a prosperous and sovereign Palestinian state.

The Ramallah regime have ruled by collaborating and cooperation's with the invader and the occupant,the failed Enterprise Israel.During the Ramallah reign Palestinians have been tortured and executed for remaining good patriots resisting the occupation.The Ramallah regime has taking part in propaganda against and politically  eliminated its own people.

The Ramallah regime has participated in collaborationist organisations and parties against the interests of the Palestinian people. The Ramallah regime have betrayed it's own people,by waging war against it, consciously and purposely acting to aid the enemies.The Ramallah regime has formed zeal with the occupant Israel, and the United States.

The Ramallah regime accepted money and weapons from United States and Israel who promised them political support.The Ramallah regime has made many attempt to overthrow the legitimate elected Palestinian government of Hamas.

 

According to Palestinian land law, selling Palestinian land and property to the Israelis, is an acts of treason punishable by death sentence, executions must be enacted for those perpetrators who are found guilty of selling land to the Israelis.

The Ramallah regime has a long record of criminal activity. But one crime that stands out, and can never be forgiven and forgotten, the different  players in the fragmented illegal PA - Ramallah regime have practised deceit, breached the quality of loyalty, empathy and affection to it's own kinship, the Palestinian people.

© PalestineFreeVoice Copyright reserved 2003 - 2011

Intellectual Rights Retained

The Al-Jazeera documents: what's next?

.

 

    
    Khalid Amayreh
  
January 24 2011 23:34

    According to the documents leaked to Al-Jazeera, PA officials agreed to deprive the vast majority refugees of this right to return to their homes in what is now Israel.

    Palestinian Authority (PA) officials have lashed out at the Al-Jazeera pan-Arab network for disclosing previously secret documents showing that PA negotiators had agreed to compromise over some cardinal issues of the Arab-Israeli conflict; these include the status of Jerusalem and the right of return for millions of refugees, uprooted from their homes when and since Israel was created in 1948.

    In an impromptu press conference held in Ramallah on 24 January, Yasser Abed Rabbo, Secretary-General of the PLO, accused the Qatar-based network of waging a relentless war on the PA and besmirching its leadership's image for the benefit of Israel and the enemies of the Palestinian struggle. He said Al-Jazeera was fabricating evidence to discredit PA President Mahmoud Abbas and his aides, adding that this campaign wouldn't have been launched without the personal approval of the Qatari Amir, Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani.

    However, a close and objective examination of the documents shows that Al-Jazeera didn't exceed its bounds and that regardless of how the network acquired the leaked documents, elements of concoction, fabrication and doctoring didn't play any role in the process. Unfortunately, PA officials and negotiators, including chief negotiator Saeb Erekat, didn't stick to the facts when trying to defend the negotiators' behaviour. Instead, they resorted to name -calling, abusive language, unfounded accusations and brash mendacity. It is not uncommon for PA apologists and spokespersons to resort to diversionary tactics and red herrings, even unnecessary jokes, to evade the hard issues at hand. In this case, the examination of the issue does show that the PA was willing to abandon and betray inalienable Palestinian rights.

    The issue of Jerusalem stands out among other issues over which the PA was obviously willing to compromise. The documents show that the PA was prepared to cede to Israel nearly all of the illegal colonies that the Zionist state has built east of the 1967 armistice line in and around occupied East Jerusalem. It is true that these settlements are not located within the boundaries of the traditional area of al-Quds al-Sharif (Noble Jerusalem) which Israel occupied in 1967. Nevertheless, they remain administratively and territorially an integral part of metropolitan East Jerusalem.

    More to the point, it is crystal clear that PA negotiators swallowed the misleading Israeli concept of a "Jewish Quarter" in the Old City of Jerusalem, even though almost all of occupied Palestine was an Arab quarter. Fewer than 20% of the houses in the so-called "Jewish Quarter" were lived in by Jews in 1968. One is prompted to ask why PA negotiators failed utterly to demand the restoration of such Jerusalem villages such as Lifta, Ayn Karem, Bayt Mahsir, Bayt umm al Mays, Dir Aban, Dayr Rafat, Deir Yasin and Al-Malha, to mention a few. Indeed, why do the Israelis have the right to insist on "restoring" Jewish property in the Armenian Quarter and the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood, while Palestinians who still have the keys to their former homes are denied the right to reclaim their homes and property? Are the Palestinians children of a lesser God? This is not only wantonly unfair and unjust, but also stupid, especially on the part of the Palestinian negotiators.

    I know that the negotiating position of the Palestinians is unenviable, to say the least, given the hard realities of the balance of power on the ground. However, the PA shouldn't just concede historical rights which it can't obtain by negotiations.

    The same applies to the right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees. The right of return, or repatriation, along with the right to compensation, was well-established by UN resolution 194. According to the documents leaked to Al-Jazeera, PA officials agreed to deprive the vast majority refugees of this right to return to their homes in what is now Israel. They agreed in principle to accept the repatriation of 100,000 refugees over 10 years, and no more. So what will happen to this historic and legal right for those who have been languishing in miserable exile for more than sixty years? Should they just kiss that right goodbye?

    Moreover, it is perhaps more pertinent to ask Ahmed Qurei, Saeb Erekat and Mahmoud Abbas exactly who it was who authorized them to make such compromises. In the final analysis, the right of return is the heart and soul of the Palestinian question. It is also an individual right which no one except that individual has the right to waive. Hence, any agreement by PA officials to cede this sacred right of the refugees is null and void according to all international and moral laws, man-made or Divinely-inspired.

    Some PA apologists have sought to justify their faulty negotiating, which amounts to criminal activity in a way, by suggesting that certain Palestinian positions in the negotiations were coordinated with "brotherly Arab rulers". This beggars belief; since when have these despots been entrusted with the defence of Muslim and national interests in Palestine? Indeed, if these dictators were capable of doing any good at all, they would surely be doing good for the benefit of their own people. The ongoing events in Tunisia are an example of what I mean. In agreeing, even tacitly or implicitly, to accept the de facto liquidation of the right of return, the PA is abandoning a long-held Palestinian national constant, including the resolution of the right of return pursuant to UN resolution 194, which stipulates both repatriation and compensation.

    We certainly don't expect Palestinian Authority officials and negotiators to emulate the great Salahuddin Al-Ayyoubi in returning Jerusalem. They are too corrupt and too unun-Islamic to deserve such an honour. However, we do expect them to keep the promises they have made consistently to the Palestinian people, including the rejection of the illegal Jewish colonies established in the West Bank since 1967. These settlements are acts of rape against the land of Palestine that should never be legitimized.

    The scandal triggered by Al-Jazeera's revelations has underscored the problem of entrusting the entire Palestinian problem, with all its Islamic and historical dimensions, to mediocre Palestinian negotiators who are left alone at the mercy of Israeli arrogance which springs out of being the occupying power.

    Hence, this issue should serve as a wake-up call to all of us, however late it may be, to make sure that these negotiators, indeed the entire PA regime, are not left alone to deal on our collective behalf. After all, Palestine and Jerusalem are Islamic issues. Omar ibn Al-Khattab and Salahuddin Al-Ayyoubi never thought of Arab, let alone Palestinian nationalism, when they liberated the Holy City. The holy Qur'an reminds us that we might dislike something in which there is much good for us. As such, Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims must stop mutual recriminations and make sure that the Palestinian Authority is never put in a position where it can repeat these potentially fatal mistakes.

       _____________________________

 The Palestine Papers - "Shocking revelations" on Jerusalem

 By Dr. Daud Abdullah

www.middleeastmonitor.org
__________________________

Video part 2
Video part 3
______________

Related ;

(April 2005) Ehus Olmert ;No East Jerusalem for the Palestinians 
(November 2005) EU Report on East Jerusalem
(November 18 2005) Confidential documents accuse the Israelis
(March 2007) Israeli real estate market  on blood soaked Palestinian land
(January 2010) US savage imperialism
(October 2010) Palestinian homeland owners, 5 hours documentary
_______________

Editors comment to " Anonymous "

Unfortunately the Jews who truly are against the Jewish/Israeli shallow enterprise "Israel" are disappointingly few. Most Jews are using lies and deceptiveness in behavior and speech - political, religious and economic means to invade,and seize the land of Palestine, they engage them self in violence, killings,genocidal mass murder, thievery,pillaging possessions  of the Palestinian people.
 

Some history background ....

The true is that the enterprise Israel was known by every Jew, planned in detail for generations.Palestine was the ideal geopolitical point of settlement for the squatters. From the ancient time of human history,the "poor victimized" Jews invaded and seized other peoples land and nature resources in order to acquire the title to it.Therefore the Jews have been kicked out of every region or country.

In Turkey, by the early 20th century,after that the Turkish Ottoman sultans welcomed the expelled European Jews into Turkey, Jews  forced the sultan out of power, destroyed the Ottoman Empire and celebrated their victory in a massacre by proxy almost the entire Christian Armenian population, one and a half million Armenians, half a million Greeks and half a million Christian Assyrians.

After that "the butcher", Ariel Sharon,and his terrorist gang invaded Lebanon in 1982, the “Operation Peace for Galilee",prepared through numerous provocations against the Palestinians and Lebanon,and designed to torpedo the 1981 Fahd Peace plan, the Jews celebrated their victory in an atrocity by proxy,killing children and women and old people,in the Palestinian refuge camp of Shattila.

The ugly, dirty job of  butchering other human beings, was handed over to the Lebanese fascist Phalanger militia, by giving them access into the refuge camp the Jews had surrounded. A two days of slaughter of the refuge camps' inhabitants would begin, eighty percent of the Palestinian refugees in the camp were killed.

To safeguard the Jew/Zionist Enterprise "Israel",  after the mass murder in 9/11, with deliberate intention, the Israeli control freaks and strategic planners designed and nourished instability in the world, a global " war on terror" was the anticipated outcome.The global "war on terror" was enacted by law shortly after the invasion of Iraq,  creating unrest allover the world. Israeli operatives were involved in the intelligence and logistics - Israeli mercenary hit - squads in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. After 9/11 Israeli owed so called, security companies have nestled into our international airports worldwide.

The Satanic Bible of the Jews, encourages Jews to kill, directly or indirectly, by sayings like:"Every Jew who spills the blood of the godless (gentiles),is making a sacrifice to God."

_______________________

MAVI MARMARA SURVIVORS SPEAK OUT AGAINST ISRAELI " WHITEWASH " :

.

              

Dear friend,

Today, Israel has released a report into its actions on the Mavi Marmara last year, when the ship - carrying aid as part of a flotilla to Gaza - was attacked by Israel, leading to the deaths of 9 Turks and the injuring of dozens more.

Viva Palestina's Kevin Ovenden, who was on board the Mavi Marmara when it was attacked by Israeli forces in May last year, said, "The claim by Israel's Turkel Commission that Israeli forces acted legally when they killed nine people aboard the Mavi Marmara, and left another brain dead, will be laughed out of court by all but the Israeli government and its most fanatical supporters.

"This whitewash commission was set up by the Netanyahu government, the same people who commissioned the assault on the aid ship. It is simply unfeasible to claim that, for example, the two men shot immediately to the left and right of me, were gunned down in some act of self-defence. They were shot from above. No Israeli commando was in sight of us when the bullets rang out.

"Israel has refused an independent international inquiry and instead was brazen enough to establish this farce. No Turkish official, lawyer or representative was allowed to take part. One of the only two international observers who was a fig-leaf for the commission's "impartiality" was Lord (David) Trimble. He was invited on to it a few months after founding a friends of Israel initiative. And as a leading establishment figure in the north of Ireland he refused for decades an independent inquiry into the killing of 14 unarmed civilians on the streets of Derry in 1972, the truth about the massacre only being officially acknowledged 38 years later with the report of the Saville inquiry.


"The United Nations Human Rights Council already found last year prime facie evidence of grave human rights abuses and war crimes aboard the Mavi Marmara.

"Rather than entertaining this charade from Tel Aviv, the British government should demand that Israel and those responsible for the atrocity of Bloody Monday on the Mediterranean on 31 May last year are held to account and to the same universal standards of justice that are required of other states.


"Whatever risible PR Israel and its supporters attempt to spin, that is going to happen. And on the one year anniversary of the attack on the Mavi Marmara a second, bigger international aid effort will set sail for the point at where it was so brutally attacked and will ask, civil society organisations, religious groups, politicians, governments, and people of conscience around the world to demand that all relevant governments and international bodies all it safe passage to Gaza.


"Wiki leaks has confirmed what independent Israeli researchers told us last year. The siege on Gaza is carefully calibrated by the Israeli government to keep the Palestinian people in a state of dependency, with their economy society hovering just above complete collapse.


"The French foreign minister Michele Alliot-Marie is the latest high profile visitor to Gaza and Palestine to call for an end to the blockade.


"The pressure to end this barbarous policy is increasing. I think I can speak for all those who were aboard the Mavi Marmara in saying that we are redoubling our efforts in 2011 to bring it to an end this year. We will be part of the next aid missions, by land, by sea and by air.


"This sick joke from an Israeli government that has already lost all international credibility will serve only to increase our determination to bring justice to the Palestinian people."

Sarah Colbourne, Director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign who also was on board the Marvi Marmara when the *Israeli Defence Force attacked the boat said:

“However hard the Israeli Government attempts to rewrite history, they can’t rewrite the truth. The facts are simple, the Marvi Marmara was carrying essential humanitarian aid like baby milk to the besieged people of Gaza. There were no guns or weapons on board the boat, we were in international waters, when over 300 bullets – or one for every two people on board - rained down on us, killing 9 people and injuring over 50.


The actions of the Israeli Defence Force and the Israeli Government where by all international standards of law illegal as is their continued occupation of Gaza and the oppression of the Palestinian people.”

Viva-Palestina

Sunday Jan 23, 2011 at 10:13 AM

_____________________________

* Israeli occupation forces
____________________________________

The Palestinian Issue: Strategic Evaluation 2010 – Strategic Assessment 2011

January 22 2011

Al-Zaytouna Centre to hold it's Annual Panel Discussion on the Strategic Developments of the Palestinian Issue in 2010 and Expected Scenarios of 2011

Beirut - On Thursday 13/1/ 2011, Al-Zaytouna Centre for Studies and Consultations held an academic panel discussion, entitled “The Palestinian Issue: Strategic Evaluation 2010 – Strategic Assessment 2011”. The discussion, held at the Crowne Plaza in Beirut, evaluated the developments in the Palestinian issue at its different levels during 2010, in addition to attempts at foreseeing possible tracks in 2011.

The panel discussion was divided into three sessions, with the participation of a select of specialists and parties concerned with the Palestinian issue. They discussed the Palestinian internal situation, the Israeli scene, the Palestinian- Israeli peace process, as well as Arab, Islamic, and International stances towards the Palestinian issue.

The discussion came as part of a series of seminars for the strategic assessment and evaluation of the developments related to the Palestinian issue. This yearly event is the fourth in a row, as the Al-Zaytouna centre prepares for its annual Palestinian strategic report.

Opening Speech and First Session:

At the beginning, Dr. Mohsen Saleh, general director of the Al-Zaytouna Centre, gave the opening speech in which he welcomed the attendees and went through the major points to be tackled in the panel discussion program.

The first session, moderated by Muhammad Suwaid, discussed the Palestinian internal situation and the panelists were Saqr Abu-Fakhr, Majid Abu-Diak, and Suhail Al-Natoor.

Abu-Fakhr started the session noting that the Palestinian issue hasn’t moved a single step forward during last year. During 2010, he argued, ideas of military struggle as a form of resistance and national liberation receded more among the political elite, with discourse turning toward civil resistance and boycott as forms of resistance. He added that the situation in Palestine now, specifically in Gaza Strip(GS), became more like Southern Lebanon where there is a state of no war, no peace and no resistance. The resistance forces have turned into defense forces in case of any aggression, which means that the Palestinian front has become like the Lebanese and the Syrian front: i.e., important positions for deterring and resistance, but no longer positions for active and effective resistance that worked in the context of a plan.

Abu-Diak pointed out in his paper that 2010 passed without any change in the structure of the Palestinian internal situation. It continued to function according to two differing political views, each controlling a specific geographic area. At the same time, Palestinian suffering intensified as a result of the division between GS and the West Bank (WB). Fatah faced the precursors of a new internal crisis that dissipated the success achieved in 2009 by Mahmud ‘Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority (PA), in amassing internal support on his side concerning the centrality of the movement. Abu-Diak didn’t see much hope in 2011 for ending the state of political division, or driving closer the stances of two opposing streams on the scene, especially as the PA declared its adherence to the peace settlement choice and many alternatives within this frame, but not outside of it.

Concerning the Palestinian internal situation, Al-Natoor mentioned in his paper that, in 2010, the same topics of conflict and dilemmas continued to cumulate from past years, amid attempts to get over the division of the Palestinian scene, and rounds of political conflict between the factions of the Palestinian national movement on the issues of: negotiations, building state institutions, lifting the siege on GS and its reconstruction, and the unknown future of the refugees issue. The Palestinian internal situation interacted with these factors either with passive stagnancy and a true suspension of the Palestinian political life or with feeble attempts to reformulate the structure and role of the most prominent Palestinian faction. He clarified that the remaining basic point of disagreement and the obstacle to reconciliation is the security apparatus file, a topic that perfectly crystallizes the conflict over authority between the two sides (Fatah and Hamas).

Second Session

The second session, moderated by Prof. Dr. Majdy Hammad, tackled both the Israeli scene and the Arab stance. The speakers were ‘Abdul-Hameed al-Kayyali, Hani al-Masri and Mohamed Jum‘a.

At the outset of the session, al-Kayyali presented an analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian scene in 2010, pointing out the shifting of the Israeli political scene during 2010 toward the racist, extreme right has continued and the resulting racist laws targeted the 1948 Palestinians. He also made an observation about the good economic conditions in Israel during 2010, since there is unity around the government and its political tendencies on the one hand, and stability in the internal front on the other.

As for the Israeli strategy in dealing with the Palestinian internal situation, Al-Kayyali saw that Israel followed the same strategy in 2010 as in previous years amidst the continued Palestinian political and geographical division. He explained that this strategy works within a number of parameters, the key ones are: First: preserving the occupation through building settlements and confiscating land, as in the case of the WB, or through controlling the land, sea and air ports as in the case of GS. Second: reshaping the Palestinian society under occupation in a way that would serve the continuation of the occupation. Third: hindering economic development in the WB and GS.

In his paper on the prospects of negotiations and peace settlement in 2011, al-Masri saw that the major characteristic of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations—more than any other—is that it was doomed to failure. It was being held under a situation of flagrant imbalance of power, the occupation was unwilling to make a peace settlement, the international will to drive it to success was absent, the Arabs refrained from using pressure cards to impose it, and which the Palestinians suffered from a destructive schism.

He expected that the Israeli will impose one of several Israeli choices and alternatives on the Palestinians. They are: First: keeping the status quo for the longest period possible until Israel completes implementing its racist expansion and settlement building plans. Second: going back to the choice of Israeli unilateral moves, imposing on the ground a state of “remains” on the Palestinians. Third: reviving the regional solution with the help of Jordan and Egypt. Fourth: the choice of a state with temporary borders within a Palestinian-Israeli agreement and American and International auspices. The last choice, he argued, seems the most preferable to Israel, as it makes the Palestinians responsible for settling their issue themselves, but it is unlikely, especially if it is not covered by an umbrella agreement that tackles core issues.

Concerning the Arab stance, Jum‘a referred in his paper to the continuous Arab paralysis regarding the Palestinian conditions in 2010, and the renewed failure of Arab parties in pressuring the US to improve the conditions of the Palestinian Israeli negotiations. He believed that the history of Arab response, during the past ten years, will not change during 2011, whether positively or negatively.

Jum‘a spoke of an Egyptian monopoly regarding the Palestinian reconciliation issue in 2010, delegated by Saudi Arabia at one level or the other as in 2009. He also reviewed the Jordanian stance towards the Palestinian issue, Jordan being a more concerned party about the failure to establish a Palestinian state with Al-Quds as its capital and about the return of the refugees. This issue for the Jordanian side, Jum‘a explained, surpasses the geographic and demographic concerns to security concerns, although these don’t have a serious impact. He further commented that the conditions may oblige Jordan to lead a more balanced foreign policy, more open towards Hamas and less congruent with the American strategy.

Third Session

The third and last session, moderated by Dr. Salahuddin al-Dabbagh, discussed the stance of the Muslim world and the international stances towards the Palestinian issue. The speakers were Prof. Dr. Talal ‘Atrissi, Dr. Mohamed Noureddine, and Prof. Dr. Walid ‘Abd al-Hay.

In his paper, Dr. ‘Atrissi pointed out that the over involvement of Muslim countries in their internal issues and burdens has negatively affected their concern for the Palestinian issue. He stressed that there have become many priorities in the Muslim world that Palestine is practically no longer the central cause. The maximum official Muslim aspirations concerning the Palestinian issue has remained the peace settlement and negotiations in 2010. Muslim country leaders did not refer to any other possibility like resistance or boycott. Meanwhile, Iran was still going it alone with stances more harmonious with the resistance than with those of these countries; stances which ‘Atrissi sees as likely to continue.

On another level, Dr. Noureddine mentioned that 2010 bore witness to an unprecedented peak of tension in Turkish-Israeli relations. The Israeli assault on the Freedom Flotilla, became a major mark in the tension between Ankara and Tel Aviv that started at the onset of the same year. He pointed out that despite the high-tone Turkish discourse and some procedures that Turkey has taken regarding Israel, the Turkish reaction to the assault on the Freedom Flotilla didn’t mount to the size of the assault. Notably, economic ties between the two countries witnessed more than 40% increase during 2010 in comparison to 2009.

Dr. Noureddine expected that Turkish Israeli relations will not make a speedy progress due to the deep wounds. He saw that Ankara’s desire to preserve the achievements of its foreign policy and its growing role will prevent it from escalating the tensions with Israel. On the contrary, Ankara will work on containing these tensions, especially after realizing that its stance towards Israel affects its relations with the West and the European Union.

Concerning the Palestinian issue, Dr. Noureddine said that the Turkish discourse remained aligned with the Palestinian issue, with a heightened emotional tone. However, there was a regression in the official Turkish initiatives towards the Palestinians in GS and WB, due to the Israeli obstruction of Turkish aid to the WB and the siege on GS. Turkish efforts to heal the Palestinian division were almost non-existent, being limited to calls to reunite the family together without any serious initiative. Noureddine views that there is an increasing Palestinian division and Arab polarization, as well as continuos Turkish efforts to loosen the tension between itself and Israel. Hence, there will be no change in Turkey’s approach to the Palestinian internal scene, unless some progress is made the Turkish Israeli relations.

On the international scene, Prof. Dr. ‘Abd al-Hay saw that 2011, due to current parameters, is likely to witness international diplomatic efforts that support Salam Fayyad’s “de facto state.” This solution will translate international efforts into action, without colliding with the Israeli stubbornness, whether on the issue of settlement building or other topics. Such a solution would also give the impression that international efforts towards a Palestinian state haven’t ceased.

At the same time, Prof. Dr. ‘Abd al-Hay noted that the European dialogue—as well as the Russian, Chinese, even the Japanese or may be the talks of American figures—with Hamas may increase in proportion with efforts toward the “de facto state.” The strategic goal of these talks will be to cajole Hamas into the circle of peace settlement solution through phased projects. This was the same thing that happened to the Palestine Liberation Organization during the eighties of the previous century.

Concluding Statement

At the end of the panel discussion, Dr. Mohsen Saleh thanked the participants, summing up the evaluations and assessments discussed. He expressed his hopes that these discussions will contribute to serving the cause and the parties working for it. Dr. Saleh pointed out that these discussions will form a supporting material for the annual The Palestinian Strategic Report prepared by the Centre, which is expected to be released at the end of April 2011.

_____________

THE RABBIS OF THE DEVIL

.

  Graffiti by extremist Jewish settlers in Hebron reads: “Gas the Arabs .. JDL”

    By Khalid Amayreh

    January 22,  2011

    Imagine, just imagine, the outcry that would follow an imagined call by a European Muslim or Christian religious leader suggesting sending hundreds of thousands of Jews to concentration camps.  The Sheikh or priest or  bishop would be lambasted  beyond imagination, and his  denomination  or church  would immediately distance itself from his foolish remarks.
   
    Political authorities would also declare that Nazi-minded Sheikh or bishop has no place in modern Europe and that governments would nip the hateful and racist elements in the bud. In short, he would be looked upon  as a pariah, to say the very least. He even might be forced to commit suicide under public pressure.
   
     As to Jewish circles, their protests would be clarion and omnipresent.
   
    But how would things look like if such a call took place in Israel and was made by a popular rabbi, with hundreds of thousands of followers?
   
    According to a weekly Hebrew magazine, several rabbis, including the rabbi of Safad, Shmuel Eliyahu,  recently proposed  the establishment of death camps for the Palestinians.
   
    The magazine indicated that the creation of these camps would be the duty of all devout Jews.
   
    The Yedeot Ahronot's YNet on Saturday, 15 January quoted the rabbis  as stating that the Torah requires Jews to wipe out any trace of the so-called Amalek in Palestine . Many religious Jews refer to their perceived or real enemies as Amalek.
   
    The YNet quoted Jewish intellectual Audi Aloni as saying that calls for the extermination of Palestinians are openly made in the synagogues as the genocidal idea has become a practical option.
   
    "No one objected to Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, chief rabbi of Safad and Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, Chief Rabbi of Beit El, who undersigned the advisory opinion, which suggested approval for their opinion."
   
    I realize that these evil men don't represent Jews everywhere, nor do they even represent the entire rabbinic community. There are many esteemed rabbis who reject outright the satanic mindset permeating through the landscape of the sick minds of people like Elyahu,  his cohorts and evil colleagues.
   
    The Torah, after all, was supposed to be a light upon humanity. But when it becomes, thanks to those rabbis of Satan, a tool for genocide, there is obviously a huge catch-22 hanging over Judaism's conscience.
   
    Again, the fact that these nefarious rabbis don't represent the entirety of Judaism is no guarantee that their damage will be limited. A fool man's fire could frustrate a thousand wise men who wouldn't know how to put it off.
   
    Isn't this the way the holocaust started? It didn't start with concentration camps, or even with Kristalnacht.  Such death camps as Auschwitz , Treblinka, Mauthauzen and Bergen Belsen became only known much later.
   
    The purpose of this small piece is not to vilify or demonize Jews. Nor am I particularly enthusiastic about hurling Nazi epithets at Jews. However, nothing should be further from truth.
   
    The call for sending millions of Palestinians to concentration camps means that a sizeable segment of the Israeli Jewish society is capable, at least mentally, of embarking on the unthinkable. It means that a real Jewish holocaust against the Palestinian people is not outside the realm of imagination.
   
    This matter is well known, even known too well for us who live in this part of the world. After all, Israel demonstrated two years ago, during its Nazi-like onslaught on the Gaza Strip, that it could do the unthinkable.
   
    And that was not the first time Israel behaved manifestly nefariously. In 2006, during the Israeli aggression on Lebanon , the Israeli air force dropped more than 2,000,000 cluster bomblets on South Lebanon civilian areas, arguably enough to kill or maim at least  2 million Lebanese children.
   
    The scant media coverage of the latest diabolic statements by the rabbis of evil in no way lessens their gravity and seriousness. After all, these are not marginal or isolated figures in society.
   
    In fact, paying not sufficient attention to this phenomenon is tantamount to encouraging it. If Germans and others had not kept silence in the late 1920s and early 1930s, many things wouldn't have occurred.
   
    I would want to be cautious drawing historical analogy between every thing happening in Israel today and everything that happened in Europe several decades ago.  However, there are certain parallels that shouldn't escape our attention, and the latest outrageous statements by these diabolical rabbis are one of them.
   
    Let no one say that words are innocuous and can't kill; nay, words can kill and do kill. A few years ago, a Jewish immigrant from France decapitated a Palestinian cabby from East Jerusalem after the taxi-driver gave the killer a ride to his home north of Tel Aviv. And when the murderer was eventually arrested and interrogated by the police, he said he heard his neighborhood synagogue rabbi say that the lives of non-Jews had no sanctity.
   
    More to the point, it is abundantly clear that thousands of Israeli soldiers would rather heed and obey their respective rabbis' homilies than their army superiors' instructions when it comes to treating Palestinians. This fact was revealed during the Israeli onslaught on Gaza two years ago when Israeli soldiers knowingly and deliberately murdered innocent civilians, including children, by the hundreds.
   
    But this is not the time for demonization; it is rather the time for action. Jewish leaders of all orientations should speak up as strongly as possible against those who are besmirching the good name of their religion.
   
    The likes of Shmuel Eliyahu must be told that there is no place in Judaism for those who advocate genocide for non-Jews. In the final analysis, when Jews or anybody else think or behave or act like the Nazis acted, they simply become Nazis themselves.
   
    Finally, Jews shouldn't keep silent in the face of these abominations just because the media and public opinion in the West are more or less keeping silent. Well, since when a moral stance was decided by other people's apathy or silence?   In fact, the immoral silence of much of the west toward what is happening in Israel these days is bad and dangerous for Jews and their future.
   
    Anything that causes moral desensitization to occur is definitely bad. This is to put it extremely mildly.
  
  
    From Khalid Amayreh 

via Palestine Information Center 

    United Kingdom

Fatal Detraction? The increasingly volatile pre trial phase of the Lebanon tribunal

Franklin Lamb

Beirut  January  22 2011

It appears that no acceptable compromise regarding the divergent Lebanese political stances relative to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) will be achieved.  Support for this hypothesis can be found in the past 24 hours activities of the would-be mediators.  The Saudi King Abdullah, ‘lifted our hand’ (i.e. abandoned mediation) cold. The Turk and Qatari envoys split, the Americans fumbled, Jumblatt flipped his choice from anti-US Omar Karami to pro-US Prime Minister (again!) and then flipped back once again and now, who knows?  

Hezbollah’s main Christian ally, Michel Aoun defamed and cursed (ex-Prime Minister Saad Hariri and the American Ambassador respectively), Syria stressed, Iran warned, Egypt remained incoherent, the Arab League waffled and adjourned “pending developments”, Hezbollah prepared, and ex-PM Saad Hariri insisted that he’s going to fight to keep his job after all. His decision late yesterday puts Saad on a collision course with the Hezbollah led March 8 “minority” which, in fact, may now be the “majority”.

The odds are that Saad will not be back as Prime Minister but that Omar Karami will. The Hariri empire and its American and Saudi allies will very likely take revenge on the new Hezbollah controlled government and gut Lebanon’s  economy.  The Saudi Wahabists are said to be not disposed to bail out a Shia dominated country run by those they claim refuse to accept the legitimate Sunnah of the prophet  Mohammad. As one Saudi journalist suggested this morning, “ Let Hezbollah and Iran put their money where their mouths are. They are going to learn a thing or two about the real World.”

 It is possible that before long, Le Liban Ancien may be gone with the wind. Indicted, convicted, condemned, dispatched and gifted to others by profoundly flawed American-Israel regional policies. Not even my astute motorbike mechanic, Hussein, is bold enough to say, whether after the coming events that he is predicting, Lebanon can rise like the sacred firebird Phoenix or will simply implode one last time into ashes to be scattered. This week, citizens are staying inside their houses more than usual, the Lebanese army is deployed at key intersections and overpasses, and some friends are cleaning their weapons and pondering whether civil war era ammunition will still fire when needed. “ Informal economy ” gun prices, like the cost of benzene, bottled gas, and fuel oil rose twice this week.

A few hours ago, someone from the Chinese Embassy called (the gentleman must have got my card from me during their fabulous reception and feast celebrating China’s  National day a few months ago)  asking if I thought Lebanon would be safe for Chinese tourists, as a group from Beijing is planning to come to Lebanon before long.  Once more, I had to confess to total cluelessness. Meanwhile the Embassy of Qatar has just announced that all its citizens should leave Lebanon.

Serious doubts are being raised about the post-investigative/pre-trial phases of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL),  specifically regarding the increasing numbers of leaks, the failure of the  so-called Syrian-Saudi initiative, unfulfilled Prosecution pledges to take action against wild media stories and perceived legal problems with the Special Tribunal for Lebanon’s  Statute and Rules of Procedure.

Some STL staff and observers are reportedly concerned that the competition and enmity between the Canadian Danial Bellemare  and the Belgium pre-Trial Judge Danial Fransen may also harm the STL’s progress.  The reputably mega-ego Bellemare is said to be still smarting from what he considered the unwarranted and rude judicial slap down he received  earlier this year from judge Fransen concerning the Jamil Sayeed case. Sayeed was one of four Lebanese pro-Syrian Generals  who spent nearly four years imprisoned for alleged involvement in the Hariri assassination based on what some believes was grandstanding tactics, including false witnesses, by Bellemare’s predecessor, German lawyer, Detlev Mehlis who recommended the generals be jailed based on Zuhair Siddiq’s false testimony.   

General Sayeed and his colleagues are understandably mad as hell and are demanding justice following  release from prison after the STL acknowledged there was insufficient evidence to have held them in the first place. Bellemare objected to Sayeed being allowed due process Judicial Discovery in order that he might learn the evidence against him that led to his imprisonment and Bellemare was unexpectedly overruled by  Judge Fransen.  Sayeed’s case continues, as a side event of the STL.

Separate from  the reported smoldering Bellemare-Fransen animus  which hopefully will not cause the proceedings to become fatally mired, there are serious doubts among some legal international law students about problems with trying the suspects Bellemare has identified in his indictments. One named indictee is said to be a Middle East country head of state and also head of government, who like no fewer than 8 Arab countries  “popular leaders of the people” got his job from his dad based on primogeniture rather than his personal record of public service.

Can the STL stage Hamlet without the Prince being present?

Increasingly, international legal critics of the STL are also highlighting flaws in the Special Tribunals Statute and Rules of Procedure. One Court  Statue provision is particularly seen to be  fundamentally inconsistent with international law, and which binds Lebanon,  is Article 22 of the Tribunal’s Statute. 

Article 22 allows for trials in absentia. One problem is that trying suspects in absentia is virtually unheard of  among international ad hoc and ‘hybrid’ UN courts. In absentia trials have been consistently forbidden in international tribunals ever since the 1945 Charter of the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg. Absentia trials were then, and ever since the end of WW II,  have been condemned for the simple reason that in absentia trials allow for deep and broad politicization of the judicial process.

A careful reading of the STL Statute leads to the conclusion that not only does Article 22 authorize in absentia trials, but it requires them.  As such, Article 22 violates Lebanon’s rights and obligations under international legal standards and practice. In absentia trials will almost certainly lead to the  political  corruption of fair trial standards and  thus gives rise to legitimate grounds  for Lebanon  and other countries to withhold cooperation from the work of the Tribunal.  In absentia  trials also will delegitimize the work product of the Lebanon Tribunal leaving any resulting verdicts deeply flawed and likely rejected by international public and legal opinion.

How so?

The right to Habeas Corpus, being the fundamental right of a person to be present at trial is enshrined in Article 14(3)(d) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which is binding upon Lebanon. It states that any person charged with a criminal offence has the right to be present at trial. This right is a minimum due process guarantee and it is required at all stages of the STL proceedings.   

The UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) ruled in  Mbenge v. Zaire  that everyone is entitled to be tried in his presence and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance. This provision in Article 14 cannot reasonably  be said to always  prohibit proceedings in absentia and sometimes international humanitarian law would allow them. 

One case would be when the accused person,  after being given actual notice of the charges, sufficiently in advance of trial, knowingly declines  the habeas corpus right. The critical question, then, is precisely when departure from the norm in the fulfillment of this objective is justified and does the STL Statue violate international law?  It is submitted that the Court’s reasoning in Mbenge v. Zaire is sound and once it is appreciated where the burden of proving the accused’s knowledge lies — that is, on the prosecution — it becomes plain that any argument based on the accused have received informal knowledge or constructive knowledge is bound to fail. Thus, as indicated by the Court in Mbenge v. Zaire, the accused must at a minimum be served with a summons if the STL Office of the Prosecution is to discharge its burden.

The case law of both the Human Rights Council and of the European Court affirms that, absent a right of retrial, actual notice of the proceedings on the part of the accused is a necessary condition in order for those proceedings to be compliant with Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR or Article 6 ECHR.  Therefore, under the relevant rules of international law binding upon Lebanon, absent an unfettered right of retrial, which the STL Statute does not provide, it is impermissible to commence a trial in the absence of the accused unless it can be demonstrated that, at the very least, the defendant had actual and direct knowledge of the proceedings. Meaning he/she must be personally served a summons. 

In additions, Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR, read in light of the subsequent practice concerning trials in absentia in many jurisdictions, indicates that (subject to retrial at the accused’s option) a court may not commence or proceed with a trial unless the prosecutor is able to establish that the accused possessed actual knowledge of the proceedings and intended to waive his right to be present. 

Article 22 STL Statute, entitled ‘trials in absentia’, provides as follows:

1. The Special Tribunal shall conduct trial proceedings in the absence of the accused, if he or she:
1. Has expressly and in writing waived his or her right to be present;
2. Has not been handed over to the Tribunal by the State authorities concerned;
3. Has absconded or otherwise cannot be found and all reasonable steps have been taken to secure his or her appearance before the Tribunal and to inform him or her of the charges confirmed by the Pre-Trial Judge.

Another of the problems with Article 22 is the real likelihood  that ‘the State authorities concerned’ may have ‘failed’ to hand over the accused for various legitimate reasons. For example, how can it be known which State authorities are “ concerned” given that the whereabouts of the accused person would likely be unknown.

Moreover, as a simple matter of public international law, Countries are under no obligation whatsoever to extradite suspects for trial in another Country. To do so is arguably unlawful  in the absence of an extradition treaty providing a basis in law for such an extradition.

 International law does not permits canceling an individual’s right to appear at his own trial on the basis that some third state  (possibly hostile to the accused or relevant Country) has not done a positive act that it is under no obligation to do. Also,  the fact that a Country may have refused to extradite an accused person is immaterial when it comes to the critical question of whether the accused himself knew of the proceedings against him and voluntarily elected not to attend.

It is possible that the international community will tire of the STL, given all the tribunals perceived defects, long before any verdicts are achieved or appeals exhausted. It remains to be seen what becomes of the original objectives contemplated by UN Security Council Resolution­­­­ 1757  as serious questions are increasingly raised about the wisdom of the UN stamping its imprimatur to a widely suspected US-Israel project in the first place.

Submitted by Franklin Lamb via : Al Manar

Franklin Lamb is doing research in Lebanon and is reachable c/o fplamb@gmail.com

Franklin P. Lamb, LLM,PhD
Director, Americans Concerned for
Middle East Peace, Wash.DC-Beirut

Board Member, The Sabra Shatila Foundation and the Palestine Civil Rights Campaign, Beirut-Washington DC
Shatila Palestinian Refugee Camp
Beirut Mobile: +961-70-497-804
Office:  +961-01-352-127
fplamb@palestinecivilrightscampaign.org _______________________________________________________________

Palestine Civil Rights Campaign-Lebanon

PLEASE SIGN HERE>

http://www.petitiononline.com/ssfpcrc/petition.html

“Failure is not an option for the Palestine Civil Rights Campaign, our only choice is success”

15 year old Hiba Hajj, PCRC volunteer, Ein el Helwe Palestinian Camp, Saida, Lebanon.

Please check our website for UPDATES:
www.palestinecivilrightscampaign.org

_______________________________________