Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Israeli soldiers assault cycling group in Jordan Valley

Ma’an – 15/04/2012

BETHLEHEM – Israeli forces assaulted a group of cyclists who were participating in a West Bank tour on Saturday, official news agency Wafa reported.

Footage appeared on Youtube which showed an Israeli commander hitting an international participant with the butt of his rifle, in an unprovoked attack.

Israeli forces can be seen physically assaulting cyclists in the video.

Soldiers stopped a group of around 250 participants near the Jericho village of al-Auja and refused to let them start a cycling tour, which was organized by youth group Sharek and officials from the al-Auja environmental center.

The tour planned to take participants on a 25 km journey through the Jordan Valley.

When participants protested against orders to stop cycling, soldiers used force against them, injuring several people.

The officer involved in the assault was identified as Shalom Eisner, the deputy commander of the Jordan Valley brigade.

An Israeli army spokeswoman described the incident as “very severe,” adding that Israeli GOC central command Nitzan Alon has ordered an investigation into the event.

~

Update – April 16th:

Rabbis For Violence, Brutality and Abuse

IDF

In recent years we have learned about a few sporadic Rabbis who promote peace, justice and humanism. But more often it seems, Israel’s prominent Rabbis are more openly enthusiastic about violence, brutality and abuse.

Ynet reports today that Israel leading rabbis rally to the aid of Lieutenant-Colonel Eisner, an IDF hooligan officer who attacked Danish peace activist yesterday.

Several prominent rabbis expressed their support for the religious Lieutenant-Colonel who was caught on camera brutally attacking a peace activist with his rifle. The Rabbis insist that the military’s decision to suspend the Lieutenant-Colonel was impetuous.

Lieutenant-Colonel Eisner expressed remorse over his action, saying that while he should not have flung his weapon at the activist, the video footage released depicted only “60 seconds out of a two-hour event.” This is indeed a winning Talmudic spin. Rather than dealing with factuality and truth of the matter, we are asked to engage with the ‘unknown’, the ‘missing footage’ so to say.

Rabbi Haim Drukman, who was Eisner’s mentor, described his former pupil as “a fine man, an idealist. He didn’t choose a military career because he needed a job – he is there to give his life for the security of the IDF “. Rabbi Druknam may be correct here, looking again at the footage, we must admit that the silent Danish peace activist seems indeed to threaten the IDF, the State of Israel, and the Jewish people in general.

Former Chief IDF Rabbi Avihai Ronski slammed the decision to suspend Eisner, who he described as “a highly ethical individual.” I guess that by now it is clear to most people that ‘ethics’ is a very relative notion in the Jews Only State.

I guess that the Israeli Rabbis are clever enough to discern a problem within the IDF’s attitude towards its hooligan officer. If Israel wants to maintain itself as the Jews only State, if Israel insists in maintaining its symptoms at the expense of the Palestinian indigenous population, then, its officers must be brutal and vile towards any from of resistance.

Sooner or later, Israel and its Rabbis will have to make a very painful decision. They will have to face the horrific moral and ethical consequences of maintaining a racist, nationalist and expansionist Jewish State.

~

More:

(photo: Hamzi Zbidat)
Related articles

April 15, 2012 Posted by | Solidarity and Activism, Subjugation - Torture, Video | , , | 40 Comments

Syria Welcomes New UN Resolution, Observers to Arrive Late Sunday

Al-Manar | April 15, 2012

International observers are expected to arrive to Syria late Sunday after the UN Security Council unanimously passed a resolution authorizing them to contact all the Syrian sides and ensure that they commit to the ceasefire.

The resolution number 2042 permits sending 30 unarmed observers to Syria by late Sunday, to later send the whole delegation which could consist of maximum 250 members.

For its part, Syria welcomed the new UN resolution, considering it serves the benefit of the Syrian people and protects them from the attacks of the armed groups.

Syrian President’s Advisor Bouthaina Shaaban told media Sunday that 30 members of the observer’s mission will first arrive to Syria to sign a cooperation protocol with the Syrian authorities, and later 250 others will arrive.

The approved protocol ensures Syria’s right to object to the nationalities of some observers.

Moreover, Shaaban stressed that “the work of the observers mission will respect Syria’s sovereignty, while the latter is responsible for providing protection for the delegation which, for its part, is supposed to inform the authorities of all its movements inside the Syrian territories.”

The Syrian official also stated that the government has marked 60 violations by armed groups since the ceasefire came to effect.

Earlier on Saturday, Syria’s permanent representative to the UN Bashar Al-Jaafari assured that his country was taking serious steps to fulfill the plan of International Envoy Kofi Annan and its commitment to ceasefire.

Speaking at the UN Security Council Session, Al-Jaafari reiterated Syria’s positive approach to Annan’s mission, and agreed on “the principle of UN observation which respects Syrian sovereignty, and that talks are underway with Annan and his team to formulate a protocol on deploying the observers,” SANA reported.

Moreover, the Syria envoy stated that “Annan’s mission can’t be successful with only the Syrian governmental support… those countries must commit in words and actions to stopping the funding, arming and training of armed groups, refraining from encouraging them in continuing their terrorist acts, and providing safe havens to their members.”

In parallel, Russia and China agreed on passing the resolution, reassuring the importance of a peaceful end to the crisis in Syria.

Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN Vitaly Churkin emphasized that his country had rejected foreign intervention and the use of force since the beginning, and rather called for a political solution.

“The draft had gone through radical changes, which makes it more balanced and reflective to the real situation,” Churkin said.

China’s Representative to the UN Security Council, Li Baodong considered that “the Syrian crisis should end peacefully through political dialogue and we encourage creating the appropriate circumstances to open the way for a political solution led by the Syrians themselves.”

April 15, 2012 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | 1 Comment

Israeli settlers injure three Palestinians, uproot dozens of olive trees in two separate incidents

IMEMC | April 15, 2012

On Thursday and Friday in the West Bank, groups of armed Israeli settlers attacked Palestinians and their property. In the northern West Bank on Thursday, armed Israeli settlers attacked Palestinian farmers, injuring three; and in the southern West Bank Friday, a group of settlers destroyed a Palestinian olive grove by chopping down all of the trees.

The incident on Thursday took place in the village of Yanun, near Nablus, where Palestinian farmers were working on their land when several Israeli settlers came onto the land and attacked them. One of the settlers involved in the attack was identified as Matan Fogel, the brother of an Israeli man who was murdered along with his family in the settlement of Itamar last year in an attack that was blamed on local Palestinians.

Fogel and the other settlers called the Israeli military to assist them in dispersing the Palestinian farmers. When the military arrived, soldiers fired tear gas at the Palestinians and abducted five Palestinian farmers, according to local sources.

The Israeli settlers claimed that the Palestinian farmers initiated the attack, and injured two settlers with farming tools. The settlers were all armed with military-grade weapons. None of the Palestinians involved in the incident were armed.

In the attack on Friday, Israeli settlers from the settlement of Maol, near Hebron, entered an olive grove near the village of Kharoubeh and chopped down trees belonging to local Palestinian landowner Jebril Mousa Khalil, according to the Popular Committee Against the Wall and Settlements.

Palestinian shepherds and international non-violent activists who were in the area came to the olive grove to try to stop the destruction, and were chased by the settlers to Tuwani village. According to eyewitnesses, the settlers ran after the activists and shepherds and threw stones at them and at Palestinian homes.

Israeli troops then arrived in the area to ‘protect the Israeli settlers’, as they are mandated to do – even when the settlers are the ones engaging in acts of violence.

Israeli settler attacks increased by 50% in 2011, and have continued to increase in the first months of 2012, although official numbers are not yet available.

Related articles

April 15, 2012 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Subjugation - Torture | , , , , , , | 1 Comment

1600 Detainees To Declare Hunger-Strike on April 17

By Saed Bannoura | IMEMC & Agencies | April 14, 2012

1600 Palestinian political prisoners, held by Israel, declared they will be starting an open-ended hunger strike on April 17th in protest of their illegal detention, and demanding basic rights.

Palestinian Minister of Detainees in the West Bank, Issa Qaraqe’, stated that the situation of the detainees in Israeli prisons is very difficult, and dangerous, especially amidst the ongoing Israeli violations and attacks against them.

Qaraqe’ added that the detainees are fighting a battle to defend their dignity and to improve their living conditions.

He further called for massive solidarity campaigns, and called for declaring April 17, Palestinian Prisoners Day, a day for solidarity and massive nonviolent protests in all parts of the occupied territories.

The Maan News Agency reported that a committee formed by the Israeli Prison Authority, headed by Yitzhak Gabai, visited a number of detention facilities, listened to the demands of the detainees, and “promised” to respond to these demands this coming week.

Some of the demands presented by the detainees are;

1. Ending Administrative Detention.
2. Ending Solitary Confinement.
3. Reinstating the right to education.
4. Halting all invasions targeting detainees’ rooms and sections.
5. Allowing family visitation, especially to detainees from the Gaza Strip.
6. Improving medical care to ailing detainees.
7. Halting the humiliation, and body-search of the families of the detainees.
8. Allowing the entry of books and newspapers.
9. Halting all sorts of penalties against the detainees.

Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons are subject to harsh and illegal treatment that violates International Law and the Fourth Geneva Convention to which Israel is a signatory.

Palestinians started marking April 17 as the Palestinian Prisoners Day, on April 17, 1974, the day Israel released Mahmoud Bakr Hijazi, in the first ever prisoner-swap deal.

202 Palestinian detainees have died after being kidnapped by Israeli forces since 1967, following Israel’s occupation to the rest of Palestine (The West Bank, the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights).

Hundreds of detainees died after they were released suffering from serious illnesses and medical conditions resulting from extreme torture and abuse in Israeli prisons.

70 detainees died in prison due to extreme torture, 74 were executed by the soldiers after being arrested, 51 died due to the lack of medical treatment, 7 detainees died due to excessive force by soldiers and after being shot while in prison, former political prisoner, head of the census department at the Ministry of Detainees, Abdul-Nasser Farawna reported.

Related articles

April 15, 2012 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Solidarity and Activism, Subjugation - Torture | , , , | Leave a comment

‘Flytilla’ for Palestine hit by arrests as Israel clamps down

Al Akhbar | April 15, 2012

Dozens of activists were detained as they flew into Israel on Sunday, as part of a protest to highlight the continued oppression of Palestinians.

Hundreds more were prevented from flying by airlines working in conjunction with the Jewish state, being stopped while boarding in countries including Britain, France, Switzerland and Turkey.

Reports on Sunday morning also said right-wing Jewish settler groups had appeared at airports in a counter protest, sparking fears of confrontation.

Over a thousand people had bought tickets to fly to Israel as part of Welcome to Palestine 2012’s ‘Flytilla’ campaign, according to event organizers.

However it appeared on Sunday morning that the majority had been prevented from boarding, with others arrested on arrival in Ben Gurion airport.

Activists condemned international airlines and countries for preventing them from boarding, with many threatening to take legal action over the cancelled flights.

Particular fury was vented at Turkey, which worked in conjunction with Israel to prevent activists boarding flights despite claiming to support the Palestinian struggle.

Spokesman for the event Diana Alzeer said three people had reached the country and travelled to Bethlehem.

Event organizers said the protest aimed to show how Palestine had become a “prison.”

“There is no way into Palestine other than through Israeli control points. Israel has turned Palestine into a giant prison, but prisoners have a right to receive visitors,” the Palestine Justice Network said.

“Welcome to Palestine 2012 will again challenge Israel’s policy of isolating the West Bank while the settler paramilitaries and army commit brutal crimes against a virtually defenceless Palestinian civilian population.”

Israel continues to deny Palestinians equal rights and restricts their freedom of movement.

The country maintains a siege of Gaza and continues to occupy the West Bank while encouraging the rapid development of Jewish-only settlements, which have been declared illegal by the UN.

Related articles

April 15, 2012 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Illegal Occupation, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , , | 4 Comments

Thomas Friedman Exposes Peace Process as a Fraud and Himself a Con Man

By Titus North | Dissident Voice | April 13th, 2012

In his latest editorial, “Awakened Arabs need the Palestinians to create a model state,”  Thomas Friedman exposes the Middle East peace process as a fraud and himself a con man. He smugly offers the Palestinians advice on how to settle their conflict with Israel. His advice? To peacefully demonstrate while carrying a map of a proposed Palestinian state that would be acceptable to most Israelis. This idea that Palestinians protest while carrying the map that Friedman starts to describe is ludicrous. He thinks they should forget about all their grievances from 1948, when the bulk of Palestinians in 78% of mandatory Palestine were violently driven from their homes never to be allowed to return, while those homes were then seized and given to Israeli Jews. But that’s not all. He wants the Palestinians to accept hundreds of thousands of heavily armed and violent Jewish “settlers” (largely religious fanatics) in enclaves carved deep into the remaining 22% of mandatory Palestine. These “settlements” are connected to Israel by Jews-only roads. How does Friedman want these roads to be portrayed on his map?

He wants Palestinians to give up a huge part of East Jerusalem. He might think he is being magnanimous when he says Palestinians can have “all Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem,” but the corollary to this is that Israel gets to keep all of neighborhoods it ethnically cleansed with 200,000 colonists. And while Friedman does not specifically mention it, his map is based on the so-called “generous offer” made by Ehud Barak to Yassir Arafat at the Camp David summit mediated by President Clinton that left Israel with the banks of the river Jordan, which gives Israel control over the regional water supply and control over all the land borders of the West Bank. Did I mention that Israel would also maintain control over West Bank air space, just as they have maintained control over Gaza air space since the “unilateral withdrawal” that Friedman spoke of?

What “concession” does Friedman propose Israel make in exchange for this prime territory in East Jerusalem and the West Bank? A “land swap.” Does this mean that on Friedman’s map Palestinians will get control of Nazerath and other towns in northern Israel that are inhabited by Palestinians, complete with Palestinian-only roads linking them to the West Bank? Would Palestinian neighborhoods in Haifa come under Palestinian control? Would the Dimona nuclear weapons facility be considered a fair exchange for the borders and airspace of the West Bank? Of course not. The swap that Friedman thinks is fair is one in which Israel can select the land it most covets and can offer the land it least values, which would be some isolated and uninhabitable tract in the Negev desert.

Friedman thinks that his map, which is nothing but a list of additional concessions, should be carried by every Palestinian engaging in non-violent civil disobedience. Will it shield them from bullets, or prevent them from getting thrown in prison? Would Rachel Corrie still be alive if only she had that map in her hands?

Friedman says his plan will revive the “Israeli peace camp.” The problem is that there never was much of a genuine peace camp in Israel. Israel is, for the most part, divided into a “cash in our chips” camp and a “double or nothing” camp. The double or nothing camp has been for establishing more settlements, housing developments, and security facilities in the remaining Palestinian lands. And they keep striving for more, even though it requires continuing the violence. The cash in the chips camp wants to stop acquiring more of these “facts on the ground,” but wants to keep whatever has already been acquired. They want peace provided they can continue to enjoy their ill-gotten gains. Part of the problem is that the “silent majority” in Israel that Friedman writes about has elected a string of governments from the double or nothing camp that has established more and more facts on the ground that the cash in the chips camp wants to cling to. Friedman’s map is a prime example of the cash in the chips mentality. It is easy to say you want peace if it means preserving a status quo that is very favorable to you.

The problem is that there are no longer enough “chips” left for the Palestinians to establish anything more than a farce of a state. The entity that Friedman and others envision for the Palestinians would not have control of its own borders, its air space, its coast line, or its water resources. It would have no military. It would be dis-contiguous and gerrymandered, ridden with enclaves of heavily armed and hostile religious and racist fanatics and crisscrossed by roads that could be used by the fanatics but not the Palestinians. How is that a state? And without a Palestinian state, how is there a two-state solution?

The point of Friedman’s preposterous proposal is not to suggest to the Palestinians a strategy for ending their tribulations, but rather to help Israel’s supporters among his readers relieve themselves of any feeling of moral culpability, as after all, the onus is on the Palestinians to carry his map.

~

Titus North is the Executive Director of Citizen Power, a non-profit research and advocacy organization in Pittsburgh, PA. Dr. North has an M.A. in International Relations from Sophia University in Tokyo and a Ph.D. in International Political Economy from the University of Pittsburgh. Before joining Citizen Power, he taught at the University of Pittsburgh for five years and covered the Japanese financial markets for Thomson-Reuters for 20 years.

April 15, 2012 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular | , | 1 Comment

World’s Apex Bully Leads World Into Lawlessness

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS | April 13, 2012

The US government pretends to live under the rule of law, to respect human rights, and to provide freedom and democracy to citizens. Washington’s pretense and the stark reality are diametrically opposed.

US government officials routinely criticize other governments for being undemocratic and for violating human rights. Yet, no other country except Israel sends bombs, missiles, and drones into sovereign countries to murder civilian populations. The torture prisons of Abu Gahraib, Guantanamo, and CIA secret rendition sites are the contributions of the Bush/Obama regimes to human rights.

Washington violates the human rights of its own citizens. Washington has suspended the civil liberties guaranteed in the US Constitution and declared its intention to detain US citizens indefinitely without due process of law.  President Obama has announced that he, at his discretion, can murder US citizens whom he regards as a threat to the US.

Congress did not respond to these extraordinary announcements with impeachment proceedings. There was no uproar from the federal courts, law schools, or bar associations. Glenn Greenwald reports that the Department of Homeland Security harasses journalists who refuse to be presstitutes,  and we have seen videos of the brutal police oppression of peaceful OWS protestors.  Chris Floyd has described on CounterPunch the torture-perverts who rule the US.

Now Washington is forcing as much of the world as it can to overthrow international treaties and international law.  Washington has issued a ukase that its word alone is international law. Any country, except those who receive Washington’s dispensation, that engages in trade with Iran or purchases Iran’s oil will be sanctioned by the US. These countries will be cut off from US markets, and their banking systems will not be able to use banks that process international payments.  In other words, Washington’s “sanctions against Iran” apply not to Iran but to countries that defy Washington and meet their energy needs with Iranian oil.

According to the Christian Science Monitor, so far Washington has granted special privileges to Japan and 10 European Union countries to continue purchasing Iranian oil. Requiring countries to shut down their economies in order to comply with Washington’s vendetta against Iran, a vendetta that has been ongoing ever since the Iranians overthrew the Washington-installed puppet, the Shah of Iran, more than three decades ago, was more than Washington could get away with. Washington has permitted Japan to keep importing between 78-85 per cent of its normal oil imports from Iran.

Washington’s dispensations, however, are arbitrary. Dispensations have not been granted to China, India, Turkey, and South Korea.  India and China are the largest importers of Iranian oil, and Turkey and South Korea are among the top ten importers. Before looking at possible unintended consequences of Washington’s vendetta against Iran, what is Washington’s case against Iran?

Frankly, Washington has no case.  It is the hoax of “weapons of mass destruction” all over again. Iran, unlike Israel, signed the non-proliferation treaty. All countries that sign the treaty have the right to nuclear energy. Washington claims that Iran is violating the treaty by developing a nuclear weapon.  There is no evidence whatsoever for Washington’s assertion.  Washington’s own 16 intelligence agencies are unanimous that Iran has had no nuclear weapons program since 2003.  Moreover, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s weapons inspectors are in Iran and have reported consistently that there is no diversion of nuclear material from the energy program to a weapons program.

On the rare occasion when Washington is reminded of the facts, Washington makes a different case. Washington asserts that Iran’s rights under the non-proliferation treaty notwithstanding, Iran cannot have a nuclear energy program, because Iran would then have learned enough to be able at some future time to make a bomb.  The world’s apex bully has unilaterally decided that the possibility that Iran might one day decide to make a nuke is too great a risk to take. It is better, Washington says, to drive up the oil price, disrupt the world economy, violate international law, and risk a major war than to have to worry that a future Iranian government will make a nuclear weapon. This is the Jeremy Bentham tyrannical approach to law that was repudiated by the Anglo-American legal system.

It is difficult to characterize Washington’s position as one of good judgment.  Moreover, Washington has never explained the huge risk Washington sees in the possibility of an Iranian nuke.  Why is this risk so much greater than the risk associated with Soviet nukes or with the nukes of the US, Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea today?  Iran is a relatively small country.  It does not have Washington’s world ambitions. Unlike Washington, Iran is not at war with a half dozen countries. Why is Washington destroying America’s reputation as a country that respects law and risking a major war and economic dislocation over some possible future development, the probability of which is unknown?

There is no good answer to this question. Lacking evidence for a case against Iran, Washington and Israel have substituted demonization. The lie has been established as truth that the current president of Iran intends to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

This lie has succeeded as propaganda even though numerous language experts have proven that the intention attributed to the Iranian president by American-Israeli propaganda is a gross mistranslation of what the president of Iran said. Once again, for Washington and its presstitutes, facts do not count. The agenda is all that counts, and any lie will be used to advance the agenda.

Washington’s sanctions could end up biting Washington harder than they bite Iran. What will Washington do if India, China, Turkey and South Korea do not succumb to Washington’s threats?

According to recent news reports, India and China are not inclined to inconvenience themselves and to harm their economic development in order to support Washington’s vendetta against Iran. Having watched China’s rapid rise and having observed North Korea’s immunity to American attack, South Korea might be wondering how much longer it intends to remain Washington’s puppet state.  Turkey, where the civilian and somewhat Islamist government has managed to become independent of the US- controlled Turkish military, appears to be slowly coming to the realization that Washington and NATO have Turkey in a “service role” in which Turkey is Washington’s agent against its own kind.

The Turkish government appears to be reassessing the benefits of being Washington’s pawn.

What Turkey and South Korea face is basically a decision whether they  will be independent countries or be subsumed within Washington’s empire.  The success of the American-Israeli assault on Iran’s independence depends on India and China.

If India and China give the bird to Washington, what can Washington do?  Absolutely nothing.  What if Washington, drowning in its gigantic hubris, announced sanctions against India and China?

Wal-Mart’s shelves would be empty, and America’s largest retailer would be hammering on the White House door.

Apple Computer and innumerable powerful US corporations, which have offshored their production for the American market to China, would see their profits evaporate. Together with their Wall Street allies, these powerful corporations would assault America with more force than the Red Army.  The Chinese trade surplus would cease to flow into US Treasury debt. The offshored-to-India back office operations of banks, credit card companies, and customer service departments of utilities throughout the US would cease to function.

In America, chaos would reign. Such are the rewards to the Empire of globalism.

Obama and the neoconservative and Israeli warmongers who urge him on to more wars do not understand that the US is no longer an independent country. America is owned by offshoring corporations and the foreign countries in which the corporations have located their production for US markets. Sanctions on China and India (and South Korea) mean sanctions on US corporations. Sanctions on Turkey mean sanctions on a NATO ally.

Do China, India, South Korea and Turkey realize that they hold the winning cards? Do they understand that they can give the bird to the American Empire and bring it down in collapse, or are they brainwashed like Europe and the rest of the world that the powerful Americans cannot be resisted?

Will China and India exercise their power over the US, or will the two countries fudge the issue and adopt a pose that saves face for Washington while they continue to purchase Iranian oil?

The answer to this question is:  how much will Washington pay China and India in secret concessions, such as eviction of the US from the South China Sea, for their pretense that China and India acknowledge Washington’s dictatorial powers over the rest of the world?

Without concession to China and India, Washington is likely to be ignored while it watches its power evaporate. A country that cannot produce industrial and manufactured goods, but can only print debt instruments and money is not a powerful country. It is a washed-up two-bit punk that can continue to strut around until the proverbial boy says:  “the Emperor has no clothes”.

Source

Related articles

April 15, 2012 Posted by | Economics, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , | 2 Comments

Egypt election commission disqualifies 3 leading candidates

Press TV – April 15, 2012

Egypt’s presidential election commission has disqualified 10 out of 23 candidates from the upcoming election, including the Muslim Brotherhood’s Khairat al-Shater and Mubarak’s spy chief Omar Suleiman.

The presidential race was shocked Saturday when the election body removed three leading candidates that also included Salafi nominee Hazem Salah Abu Ismail from next month’s vote.

The candidates have 48 hours to appeal against the decision.

The polls are scheduled to be held in two rounds. The first would be held over two days on May 23 and 24, while a run-off, if necessary, would take place on June 16 and 17. Final results are expected on June 21.

The disqualifications were announced two days after Egyptians held a mass rally, organized by the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafist groups, to pressure the country’s ruling junta to prohibit members of the ousted ex-ruler Hosni Mubarak’s regime from running for president.

The huge demonstration came a day after the country’s parliament ratified a bill prohibiting members of the old guard from standing for public office.

Omar Suleiman, who served as the head of Egypt’s General Intelligence Department for 18 years, registered as one of the presidential hopefuls last week.

Many consider Suleiman a favorite of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), which has ruled Egypt since Mubarak’s ouster in February 11, 2011.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate Khairat al-Shater had said that Suleiman’s presidential bid could spark a second revolution in the country.

Related articles

April 15, 2012 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , , | Leave a comment

NATO blamed for Mali unrest

By Toivo Ndjebela | New Era | April 13, 2012

WINDHOEK – Namibia has blamed the architects of last year’s overthrow of the Libyan government for the civil strife and the recent coup against a democratically elected government in Mali.

Tuareg rebels in Mali have proclaimed independence for the country’s northern part after capturing key towns this week.

Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi administration fell last year after local rebels, with the help of NATO forces – and initially France, Britain and the USA – drove the long-serving leader out of the capital Tripoli and ultimately killed him after months in hiding.

The Namibian government believes the events in Libya are now bearing sour fruit within the western and northern parts of Africa, in what is known as the Sahel region.

“The profoundly retrogressive developments in Mali are a direct consequence of the unstable security and political situation in Libya, created by the precipitous military overthrow of the government of Libya in 2011,” a government statement, released Tuesday by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, states.

The statement continued: “Accordingly, those countries that rushed to use military force in Libya, had underestimated the severe repercussions of their actions in the Sahel region.”

“They should thus bear some responsibility for the instability in Mali and the general insecurity in the region.”

Nomadic Tuaregs have harboured ambitions to secede Mali’s northern part since the country’s independence from France in 1960, but lack of foreign support for this idea meant the dream would only be realized 52 years later.

Namibia herself survived a secession attempt in 1999 when a self-styled rebel group, led by former Swapo and DTA politician Mishake Muyongo, now exiled in Denmark, attempted to separate the Caprivi Region from the rest of Namibia.

The Mali situation already cost Amadou Toumani Toure his job last month, when junior army officers overthrew him for what they say was his reluctance to avail resources needed to fight the advancing Tuareg rebels.

Speaker of Mali’s parliament, Doincounda Traore, was expected to be sworn in as president yesterday morning, a development that would restore civilian rule in the humanitarian crisis-hit West African country.

Traore is inheriting control of only half of the country, with northern Mali now falling under control of Tuareg rebels and Islamists.

Namibia said those tearing Mali into administrative pieces should have observed the African Union’s principle of inviolability of borders of the African countries.

“This principle of indivisibility of borders has served Africa well since its adoption by the OAU (Organisation of African Unity) Summit in Cairo in 1964,” the statement further reads.

It further stated: “The Government of Namibia reiterates its unequivocal rejection of any attempt to dismember any African country and unreservedly condemns all manner of secessionist aspirations.”

Namibia is yet to officially recognize the new Libyan government, whose local embassy held a ‘revolution anniversary’ in February without attendance of any notable officials of the Namibian government.

April 14, 2012 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Yes, The 99% Spring Is A Fraud

By Charles M. Young – This Can’t Be Happening – 04/13/2012

With hindsight gained by googling “MoveOn” and “co-opt” after the fact, I can’t claim that nobody tried to warn me. Many websites with left and even liberal politics had said in so many words, “Be wary of this organization called the 99% Spring. It is a Trojan horse for the Democrats.” I just didn’t read that anywhere in a timely fashion. I’ve had a lot of stuff on my plate lately. That’s my excuse. And in my ignorance, I responded to some spam about “nonviolent direct action training” organized by MoveOn and got invited to this 99% Spring thing on April 10 at the Goddard Riverside Community Center in Manhattan. Somebody even called me all the way from San Francisco to make sure I was a sincere seeker on the left and would be attending, along with 120,000 others in training sessions around the country.

Which I did. The meeting was a few blocks from where I live. The spam said it was “inspired by Occupy Wall Street.” I wasn’t sure what that meant, but I was vaguely hoping that whatever the 99% Spring was, it would start a chapter of Occupy Wall Street on the Upper West Side, conveniently near my abode, and agitate for the Democrats and MoveOn to move left.

The first clue that my evening might go otherwise was the sign-up table, where there were a bunch of Obama buttons for sale and one sign-up sheet for the oddly named Community Free Democrats (are they free of community?), which is the local Democratic clubhouse. That killed the “inspired by Occupy Wall Street” vibe right there. No piles of literature from a zillion different groups, as there had been in Zuccotti Park. No animated arguments among Marxists, anarchists, progressives, punks, engaged Buddhists, anti-war libertarians and what have you. Just Obama buttons, which didn’t appear to be selling.

Inside the hall, it looked like an alumni reunion for the 1966 Fifth Avenue Vietnam Peace Parade. Almost all the 150 or so people were 55-80 years old. The ones I talked to expressed curiosity about Occupy Wall Street and enthusiasm about “nonviolent direct action” but didn’t have the knees or the ears for full participation in OWS activities in the financial district.

A large man with long wavy hair combed back started the presentation with a stirring call for…the meeting to be off the record. He didn’t want any stories that would violate anyone’s privacy, and if there were any lurking journalists, they weren’t allowed to use any names and they must see him afterwards for further instruction on the ground rules. This struck an even more dysphoric note than the Obama buttons.

WTF thought #1:  This was a public event ostensibly to convince members of the public to engage in behavior that challenged the legitimacy of government authority in public and might cause angry police to beat the public crap out of them. Why would anyone risk that without trying to get publicity for their cause? Nonviolent direct action that no one knows about is like jerking off. It might make you feel better, but you’re not changing the world.

WTF thought #2: Transparency is the only protection that nonviolent people have against police spies and provocateurs and other infiltrators. Occupy Wall Street does a pretty good job with transparency. An organization claiming to be inspired by OWS but shunning transparency is deeply suspect.

WTF thought #3: Washington press corp rules for a meeting on nonviolent direct action?

WTF thought #4: I actually wasn’t there with the idea of writing about it, but neither did I agree to anything, so there was no agreement.

WTF thought #5: The name of the large man with the wavy hair was Marc Landis. He is a District Leader for the Democrats, who were paying for use of the meeting room. He is running for City Council. According to his law firm’s website his areas of experience are: “Real Estate, Banking & Finance, Corporate & Business Law, Securities & Private Placement, Fund Formation & Investment Management Group…” His Facebook page, which is geared for his City Council campaign, makes it sound like his specialty is pro bono community work. I don’t know. He might be a nice guy, but it doesn’t take a lot of intuition to wonder if he’s really been “inspired by Occupy Wall Street.” He’s a corporate lawyer. I can think of no reason for him to demand that the meeting be off the record other than he and his party don’t want to be publicly associated with anything radical, even it’s a pseudo-radical front group meant to steer people away from the truly radical Occupy Wall Street and into pointless activities that don’t embarrass Obama.

Next they showed a video that invited us “to tell our story” so that the 99% Spring could post us online along with hundreds of other people who had been foreclosed, bankrupted, lost their medical insurance or whatever. It appeared they all wanted to raise taxes, so that the rich would “pay their fair share.”

It was sanctimonious. It was supplicating before power. The audience looked like it wanted to puke.

Next some guy whose name I didn’t catch gave an astonishingly simple-minded lecture on the history of American radicalism since the populists. “This might be okay for Iowa, but not the Upper West Side,” said a woman near me.

That’s an insult to Iowa, but let me explain about the Upper West Side. It used to be a liberal-to-radical neighborhood that was ferocious in its support for civil rights and the anti-war movement. Its nickname was the Upper Left Side, and people here could read three biographies of Leon Trotsky before breakfast. Disastrously, it has become the most desirable living space in Manhattan, and Wall Street/corporate/real estate weenies have been taking over. But a significant radical remnant remains, thanks to rent control laws that Democrats seem to understand are necessary to preserve their voters.

“And then in the 50s, we had the civil right movement…” the guy droned.

“ Uh, I think we should conclude the lecture and break up into groups to discuss our nonviolent direct action training,” said Landis. “We seem to be losing people.” A lot of them, too.

So the hundred-odd remaining Upper Left Siders split into four groups for discussion. My group happened to be led by Landis, who directed the 35 of us to sit in a circle and identify ourselves with an explanation of why we were there. I was about #15 in the circle and the people who preceded me all appeared to have no experience with Occupy Wall Street and wanted to get involved. When it was my turn I said that Zuccotti Park was the most entertaining place to be in Manhattan for a couple months last fall and I hoped it would revive. And I said that the other thing I liked was that it was to the left of the Democratic Party and was pushing it from outside. There had been some mention of “the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act during the 90s” and I pointed out that it was Bill Clinton, a Democrat, who deregulated Wall Street.

“Excuse me,” said Landis. “We have a limited amount of time and a lot to discuss. We need to let everyone speak.”

I’ve thought about that a lot. I don’t believe I spoke for more than a minute, but I habitually obey the rules in a group, so I shut up. In retrospect, I was censored. I should have demanded a discussion of the true purpose of the 99% Spring and why Obama’s Department of Homeland Security orchestrated the violent destruction of hundreds of nonviolent Occupy camps around the country last fall.

As it was, we finished going around the circle. Everyone was a teacher or writer or connected with the labor movement. Wisconsin came up a few times. Landis asked what kind of a world we wanted to see. Someone said, “Socialism” and Landis said the topic for discussion was now how to plan for a “hypothetical direct action.” Every time somebody brought up something that was actually happening, Landis insisted that our agenda was set and we were only discussing hypothetical situations. So we talked about hypothetically withdrawing money from a hypothetical evil bank, or hypothetically stopping the hypothetical fracking in the Catskills that is going to poison New York City’s hypothetical drinking water.

“What about May 1?” said a retired professor.

“What about it?” said Landis.

“I heard that Occupy Wall Street was calling for a general strike. They’re planning actions all around midtown and they’re saying that nobody should go to work that day.”

“I don’t know anything about that,” said Landis. “We’re talking about hypothetical situations here.”

And so it went from 6:30 to 9:30 last Tuesday night. Over half the crowd left early. Most of those who stayed appeared to be angry and mystified that they had received no training whatever in nonviolent direct action. I doubt that the Democrats or MoveOn succeeded in co-opting anyone, and I predict that they will be inventing more dreary front groups as the election year grinds onward. “Front groups, not issues!” should be Obama’s rallying cry.

“I’m taking the subway to Wall Street,” said a guy in his 20s (probably the only guy in his 20s) as he walked out the door. “That’s where the action is. People are sleeping on the sidewalk there. Apparently the police can’t arrest you if you take up less than half the sidewalk. Go to Maydaynyc.org if you want to find out about the general strike.”

Related articles

April 14, 2012 Posted by | Deception, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | 1 Comment

World demands South Sudan pullout of Heglig, end to Khartoum’s air raids

Sudan Tribune | April 12, 2012

KHARTOUM – A chorus of regional and international organizations reacted with concern on Thursday to heightened tension between Sudan and South Sudan following the latter’s takeover of Heglig area, urging Juba to withdraw troops and Khartoum to end aerial bombardment of southern territories.

The seizure on 11 April of Heglig oil-producing town by the army of South Sudan from Sudanese forces has created regional and international alarm as the United Nations (UN) and the African Union (AU) strongly demanded that Juba pull out troops and Khartoum cease aerial bombardment.

South Sudan justified its occupation of Heglig, which officially lies in Sudan’s border state of South Kordofan, by saying it was responding to ground and aerial attacks launched by the Sudanese army inside southern territories.

Salva Kiir, the southern president, refused on Thursday refused to heed calls from the UN and AU for withdrawing his troops while his Sudanese counterpart Omer Al-Bashir accused South Sudan of seeking war and vowed to retake the town.

In Addis Ababa, Ethiopia’s capital, the AU’s Peace and Security Council (AUPSC) held its 317 meeting on Thursday and received briefing on the military escalations along the borders between Sudan and South Sudan.

In an ensuing press release, the AUPSC expressed “deep concern” at the situation on the ground and strong disappointment over the failure of both sides to honor the agreements they signed during post-secession talks under the facilitation of AU mediators led by former South African President Thabo Mbeki.

The AUPSC also condemned in the strongest terms the actions taken by both sides over the last month, saying they “run contrary to all AU and international principles governing relations among sovereign states”

The council has struck a tough tone on South Sudan, describing its takeover of Heglig as “illegal and unacceptable”, citing the fact that the town lies north of the agreed borderline of 1956 between the two countries. It went on to demand the “immediate and unconditional” withdrawal of South Sudan’s army from the area.

Similarly, although less intoned, the council demanded that Sudan put an end to its aerial bombardments in South Sudan.

The council also stressed that both sides should make every efforts to protect oil infrastructure in areas of conflict.

A continent away, meanwhile, the UN Security Council (UNSC) issued a strongly-worded statement in which it expressed deep alarm over the escalating situation and demanded that both sides refrain from hostile activities.

Susan Rice, the US envoy to the council and its rotating president, on Thursday read out a statement saying that the 15 member council “demands a complete, immediate, and unconditional end to all fighting; withdrawal of the SPLA [South Sudan’s army] from Heglig; end to SAF [Sudan’s army] aerial bombardments; end to repeated incidents of cross-border violence between Sudan and South Sudan; and an end to support by both sides to proxies in the other country,”

The council also demanded that both sides redeploy their troops “10 kilometers” outside the 1956 borderline as well as outside the hotly contested region of Abyei, which has been occupied by Sudan since May 2010.

Furthermore, the council urged the two countries to “immediately establish” a safe demilitarized border zone and stick to a deal they signed last year on joint border monitoring.

The council also called on Al-Bashir and Kiir to “meet immediately” in order to compensate for a summit they were supposed to hold on 3 April but was cancelled by Khartoum following earlier fighting around Heglig.

In a press conference held in Geneva Thursday, the UN’s secretary-general Ban Ki-moon echoed similar concerns and urged both government to cease hostilities immediately and arrange for a summit between Al-Bashir and Kiir.

Meanwhile, Sudan’s UN ambassador, Daffa-Alla Elhag Ali Osman, warned that his country would retaliate and strike deep into South Sudan if the latter does not comply with calls for withdrawal from Heglig.

“We in the government of Sudan, we will observe closely the behavior and attitude and the reaction of the government of the South for this call,” said Osman. “If they don’t heed it to this call, we will reserve our right to exercise the right of self-defense and we will chase them out; not only that, we will hit deep inside the south.”

His South Sudanese counterpart, Agnes Oswaha, told reporters in New York that her country supports UN calls for end of fighting and was prepared to negotiate with Khartoum.

However, she said that Juba would not order a withdrwal from Heglig unless a mechanism was put in place to guarantee the area could not be used to launch further attacks against South Sudan” and a neutral international force was deployed to the area until the neighbors reached a settlement on the disputed territory.

In Brussels, the European Union has also condemned South Sudan’s capture of Heglig and Sudan’s aerial bombardment of southern territories.

“The move by the South Sudanese armed forces to occupy Heglig is completely unacceptable. So is continued aerial bombardment of South Sudanese territory by the Sudan Armed Forces,” a spokesman for the EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said on Thursday.

The EU’s foreign policy chief called on both sides “to cease hostilities, withdraw forces immediately and stop support of armed groups in the territory of each other”

Related articles

April 13, 2012 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

Russian Warships to Patrol Syrian Coast

Russian Information Agency Novosti | April 13, 2012

MOSCOW: Russian warships will be continuously deployed for patrol duty off the Syrian coast in the Mediterranean, a high-ranking source in the Russian Defense Ministry said on Friday.

“A decision has been made to deploy Russian warships near the Syrian shores on a permanent basis,” the source said.

The Russian Kashin-class guided-missile destroyer Smetlivy is currently deployed near the Syrian coast.

“Another Black Sea Fleet ship will replace the Smetlivy in May,” the source said, adding that several Russian warships were on their way to the Mediterranean.

“This may be the Pytlivy frigate or one of the amphibious assault ships,” he said, adding that “deployment of a Black Sea Fleet task force to the region cannot be ruled out.”

The United States, France, Great Britain, Germany and some other countries have deployed more warships to the Mediterranean since the outbreak of unrest in Syria in February 2012. More than 9,000 people have been killed in the violence, according to the United Nations. On Thursday, the Syrian government declared a ceasefire with opposition fighters as part of a U.N.-brokered peace plan.

The Russian military has repeatedly underscored the need for Russian warships to patrol the Mediterranean on a permanent basis. In Soviet days, up to 50 warships from the Fifth Squadron of the Russian Black Sea Fleet and other Soviet Navy units have been deployed in the Mediterranean on a permanent basis.

Over the winter months, a Russian task force, led by the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, has been deployed to the Mediterranean. The ships returned to the Russian Northern Fleet’s home base of Severomorsk in February, after two-month naval exercises.

Other Russian ships currently on patrol duty in the Mediterranean are the Kildin surveillance ship, as well as the Iman tanker vessel and a floating workshop deployed near the Syrian port of Tartus.

April 13, 2012 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »