Aletho News

Election Night in Nicaragua

By JOSH HOLLIS | CounterPunch | November 8, 2011

Managua – I spent election day, Sunday the 6^th, in Granada, Nicaragua. Then travelled to Managua the following day.

The night before, the most prominent signs of the election were to be found hung outside bars and liquor stores – the government had banned sales of alcohol from 6pm Saturday night and people needed reminding. Otherwise there was little to distinguish the event, the town seemed to flow with its normal routine and its gentle charm was unruffled. There was certainly no sign of the violence suggested on the front-page of La Prensa, which had led with a front-page picture of a burning car.

Sunday morning we were awoken by a long unbroken peal of church bells, that continued at intervals throughout the day. As we strolled around town stopping at polling stations everything was orderly and surprisingly small scale. The polling stations electoral rolls were affixed outside and none had more than a couple of hundred names on. The stations were manned not by police, or soldiers, but civilians. A mix of old and young all wearing fresh white t-shirts that denoted them as the organisers. Nowhere we passed had large groups in or around the stations, none had any party markings nearby, and there was no preference apparent without asking people.

By about eleven on Saturday evening the first news hit the street of a victory for Daniel Ortega. One car drove past waving a Sandinista flag, but the street remained quite and the mood restrained. By midnight fireworks started going off and there was singing coming from the Plaza. We fell asleep with horns still beeping intermittently and the loud pops of homemade fireworks that banged but didn’t flare.

The day following the election had a festive feel. La Prensa had “worse than fraud” across its front-page, but it seemed to be the only suggestion of this. Our taxi driver that morning was clearly not a partisan for Ortega – or simply Daniel here – but he was unequivocal that Daniel was the peoples choice. He said that over the last five years the health and education systems had improved and that it was hard to argue against both being free for everybody. A Sandinista flag toting young man we spoke to had a rather more sanguine anecdote for the root of his popularity, he said that Ortega had given the rural poor cows.

Late Monday morning we took the bus to Managua. People were excited, shouting numbers at one another wherever there was a television by the side of the road; the question was how much of the vote was in and how much was for Ortega. In Managua crowds were gathering and there was clearly a party brewing where there had been a party the night before. It was hard to marry the mood around Managua with the stories of violence and intimidation reported in some of the international press, even if the result was in already.

Reading the reaction to the election in the international press was an example of how perception can shape reality. Governments of the south, especially those who speak out against domination from the north, are held to higher standards than other governments. For example, whilst there may have been some irregularities in the Nicaraguan election, there is no suggestion that they affected the outcome, such was margin of victory; to manufacture this would have taken flagrant fraud. Conversely, whilst proportionately smaller in number, the issues with denial of voting rights in Florida in 2004 could well have been decisive. Whilst this may not have gone unnoticed by everyone, there was little suggestion of looming tyranny in the mainstream press.

Both the London Guardian and the New York Times suggested that Ortega might now run in perpetuity, citing unnamed sources for the suggestion that he could demolish democracy in the country that he had had a large hand in introducing it to. (The Times report was filed from Honduras, serving as a small reminder of the fragility of democratic forms and their expendability in the face of social programs favouring the poor.)

As well as the double standards, western reports are often historically amnesic. Nicaragua in the last hundred years has only a brief history of democracy. Dominated by American interests in the early part of the twentieth century and repeatedly occupied buy its marines when the people sought to assert their own. As the system of exploitation moved with the times and became neo-colonial, the Somoza dictatorship ruled Nicaragua with U.S. support – another example of double standards from the pulpit. It was the Sandinistas who removed the dictatorship. They then held elections in 1984 that were boycotted by the opposition under strong U.S. pressure, much to their later regret when they realised the gains they might have made. When further elections were held in 1990 the Sandinistas were voted out and they peacefully gave up power. In contrast, the Bush administration had promised to continue the dirty war against the country should they win, perhaps instructive of the respect for democracy on either side.

One final example of the underlying attitudes of western superiority that permeate analysis of third world politics. In every report I have read today online, (all buried behind news on Whacko Jacko’s ghoul maker) the reticence of the Nicaraguan government in allowing international election monitors has been used as an example to support accusations of fraud. However, Ortega was quite explicit on this issue, as Nicaragua would not presume to and would not be welcome to observe British elections, for example, then why should  these roles be reversed? It is only assumed in the west that the rest of the world has an obligation to justify themselves to the former and current centres of imperial power.

Whatever the flaws of the process and the uncertainty of the future policies, it seems clear that for better or worse Daniel Ortega is the choice of the Nicaraguan people. Whilst Ortega has angered some of his former revolutionary comrades for his lack of ideological zeal and for some he cannot be disassociated from his radical past, he now seems to be ploughing a pragmatic path. At its heart, there is a commitment to lifting people out of poverty (down 12% in 5 years), whilst avoiding the economic regression – previously brought on by outside attack – that sunk the revolution.

Whilst I write this, Hugo Chavez is indulging in one of his long orations on Canal Sur. After asserting that the great challenge facing Guatemala is not the crimes of the past, but the daily crime of thirty children dying of want every 24 hours, he moves on to Nicaragua. Asked to comment on the allegations of fraud, he says that these are inevitable and he expects the same next October if he is reelected.

Like Chavez, and many of the left leaning Latin American leaders, Ortega talks a good talk. The proof will be in exerting enough influence and intelligence to share more equitably the wealth of his nation whilst simultaneously expanding it – a tough trick to pull if you alienate the capitalist class. In the meantime people will call fraud, but only time and the results of policy will show if these have any merits. Tonight in Nicaragua is the Sandinista’s night, for real.

November 8, 2011 Posted by aletho | Aletho News | Leave a comment

Ortega re-elected Nicaraguan president

Press TV – November 8, 2011

Nicaragua’s incumbent President Daniel Ortega has won the country’s presidential elections by securing 62.7 percent of the vote.

Ortega’s closest rival, Fabio Gadea, won only 31 percent of the vote, Reuters reported on Monday.

Gadea, a conservative radio personality, refused to accept the results and accused the president-elect of electoral fraud.

However, the international observers present at the polls said the irregular voting patterns spotted during the event were not strong enough to change the results.

The victory sent Ortega’s supporters celebrating on the streets of the capital Managua on Monday.

“I’m happy … I think that people are convinced, they voted for social programs, voted for the future, voted for the poor,” said a lawyer named Silvia Calderon.

Ortega has been a leading figure in Nicaraguan politics since he led a revolution to overthrow the country’s dictator Anastasio Somoza in 1979.

Ortega was elected president in 1984 amid fighting a civil war against the US-backed Contra rebels and was voted out of power in 1990. He failed in successive bids for re-election in 1996 and 2001, but returned to power in 2007.

Ortega’s policies have won widespread support in Nicaragua and his social programs have attracted a large support base over the past five years.

November 7, 2011 Posted by aletho | Aletho News | Leave a comment

How Unesco countries voted on Palestinian membership

The Guardian | November 1, 2011

Breakdown of how Unesco countries voted on Palestinian membership

194 member states

173 votes cast

81 required majority

52 abstentions

14 “no” votes

107 “yes” votes

No:

Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Palau, Panama, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Sweden, US, Vanuatu.

Abstentions:

Albania, Andorra, Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Cook Islands, Ivory Coast, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Fiji, Georgia, Haiti, Hungary, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liberia, Mexico, Monaco, Montenegro, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Portugal, South Korea, Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Switzerland, Thailand, Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, UK, Zambia.

Yes:

Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Absent (includes states that lost right to vote because membership fees were not paid):

Antigua and Barbuda, Central African Republic, Comoros, Dominica, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Madagascar, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Mongolia, Niue, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Swaziland, Tajikistan, East Timor, Turkmenistan.

November 2, 2011 Posted by aletho | Aletho News | Leave a comment

Understanding Tunisia’s Elections Results

By ESAM AL-AMIN | CounterPunch | October 28, 2011

In early 1994 a small Islamic think tank affiliated with the University of South Florida (USF) planned an academic forum to host Rachid Ghannouchi, the leader of the main opposition party in Tunisia, Ennahdha. The objective of this annual event was to give Western academics and intellectuals a rare opportunity to engage an Islamically-oriented intellectual or political leader at a time when the political discourse was dominated by Samuel Huntington’s much hyped clash of civilizations thesis.Shortly after the public announcement of the event, pro-Israeli groups and advocates led by Martin Kramer, Daniel Pipes, Steven Emerson, the head of the local B’nai B’rith, and a small-time journalist for the local rightwing newspaper began a coordinated campaign to discredit the event and scare the university.

According to Arthur Lowrie, a former State Department official who was an adjunct professor at USF at the time, AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups exerted enormous pressure on the State Department to rescind its visa to Ghannouchi two weeks after it was issued in London. Consequently the university had to cancel the event, despite the strong protests by more than two-dozen scholars and academics. As a result, a valuable encounter between western intellectuals and opinion makers on the one hand, and a major figure in the Islamic world on the other, was obstructed because of a foreign agenda of a small but powerful interest group. This episode foreshadowed the anti-intellectual movement in subsequent years that sought to limit the ability of Islamic groups and figures to contribute to the national dialogue, especially after 9/11.

Since that day in 1994, Ghannouchi has never been issued a visa to enter the United States, although he had been to the country several times in the late 1980s and early 1990s. At the time, he was living in the United Kingdom after being granted political asylum and cleared by the British authorities of any links to violence. He had also won a defamation lawsuit in the U.K. against detractors and regime loyalists who accused him of fomenting violence and strife inside Tunisia.

Seventeen years later, Ghannouchi’s Islamically-oriented Ennahdha movement has won the elections in Tunisia with a commanding 42 percent of the vote. In effect, it received three times as many seats as the next highest party. These elections were largely praised by all relevant parties and international observers as democratic, free, fair, and transparent.

But these free and fair elections could not have taken place without the popular revolution that erupted last December17 in Sidi Bouzid following decades of  repression and rampant corruption. It quickly spread throughout the country, ultimately culminating on January 14 when the long-time dictator Zine al-Abdine Ben Ali and his family fled to Saudi Arabia.

Since Tunisia’s independence from France in 1956, the country has been ruled by a one-party system that imposed its autocratic version of strict secularism. But when Ben Ali took power in a bloodless coup in 1987, he treated the country to a brief period of political openness until the security apparatus cracked down on all political opposition, particularly Ennahdha and other pro-democracy and human rights groups.

So who were the major contenders in these elections? What was the main platform of each party? How did each one fair in the end? What do the results mean for Tunisia? And what happens next?

On October 23rd, Tunisians went to the polls for the first time since their revolution to elect a Constituent National Assembly (CNA) consisting of 217 seats, including 18 representing more than one million expatriates living abroad, out of 11 million Tunisians. The main role of the CNA is to write a new constitution for Tunisia that embodies the democratic aspirations of the popular revolution.

There were about 91 party lists as well as independents distributed over 27 geographical districts around the country and 6 districts abroad, mainly in Europe. According to the Tunisian Independent Elections Commission, the voter turnout exceeded all estimates, as nearly ninety percent of all registered voters participated, with some waiting as long as four hours to cast their votes. Amidst the dozens of lists, there were actually four major contenders. But a win of nine percent of the votes by a newly formed party with questionable leadership, was a major surprise to all political observers in Tunisia. Here is a list of the elections’ major winners and losers.

1) Ennahdha Party was the successor to the Tunisian Islamic Trend Movement that was once affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1960s and has been led by Ghannouchi, 70, since the mid 1970s. In 1989 it changed its name to Ennahdha or Renaissance Party and declared its commitment to democracy and pluralism. The movement considers itself a moderate Islamic party concerned with the preservation of Tunisia’s identity as an Arab and Islamic nation. For much of the past decade it has called for a political model similar to the Justice and Development Party (AKP) of Prime Minister Recep Tayeb Erdogan in Turkey. More recently, it has advocated the accommodation of liberal and secular-humanist values with Islamic principles, especially in social and economic spheres. It also favors a parliamentary system of government.

After almost gaining a fifth of the vote in the 1989 elections, Ben Ali banned the movement and cracked down on its institutions, imprisoning around thirty thousand of its members over the span of two decades. As the main opposition group in the past three decades, Ennahdha was well organized and known throughout the country. Its leaders were respected and admired not only in urban centers but also in rural areas. Consequently, in this election it won overwhelmingly in all districts but one, gaining 90 seats, including half the seats abroad.

2) Congress for the Republic (CFR). Established in 2001 it has been led by Moncef Marzouki, 66, a charismatic physician and human rights advocate. The CFR is considered a leftist party that emphasizes Arab nationalism and identity as well as mainly secular values. Moreover, it calls for public accommodation of moderate Islamic principles and groups. It also advocates for a presidential system with strong parliamentary powers. Marzouki is well known for his fierce advocacy of human rights, democracy and transparency. CFR came in second in voting, receiving 30 seats across the country.

3) Block (Takattol) for Labor and Liberties. Established in 1994 by progressive and leftist activists and professionals, Takattol rejected dictatorship and advocated for socialist and nationalist policies. Its leader is Mustafa Bin Jaafar, 71, who was named Health Minister in the cabinet appointed shortly after the revolution. Although very secular in its policies, it recognizes the importance of Islam in society and has a moderate and accommodationist view on the inclusion of political Islam in public life. It gained 21 seats in the elections.

4) The Progressive Democratic Party (PDP). Established in 1998, PDP was considered the main opposition party challenging the corrupt ruling party during the reign of Ben Ali. It advocated strict secular principles and was regarded as the main ideological nemesis of Ennahdha. Its historical leader was Ahmad Nejib Chabbi, 67, a well known attorney, and leftist politician. Since 2006 it has been led by Maya Jribi, 51, a biologist, human rights activist, and a feminist with enormous political skills. During the campaign PDP leaders challenged Ennahdha and pledged to come first. However, it was crushed in the elections receiving only 17 seats. After the elections it conceded defeat and congratulated Ennahdha, but vowed not to join any governing coalition and to remain in the opposition.

5) Popular List (Al-Aridha Chabiyya). The elections result of this list was a complete surprise to all observers. This list, which has only existed for few months, was led by Al-Hashmi Al-Hamdi, the owner of a TV satellite channel based in London and a former Ennahdha member who broke with the group in the mid 1990s. Since then he has openly attacked Ennahdha and worked closely with Ben Ali’s regime. His group gained 19 seats in the elections.

Many political observers charge that this party was financed and supported by the remnants of the old regime and Ben Ali’s banned Constitutional Party. After announcing the results, the Elections Commission invalidated the seats of the Popular List in six districts charging the party with elections violations, including bribery.

The remaining seats were distributed over twenty other parties including tribal, liberal, communist, and other far-left parties. But most significantly the main loser was the coalition of eleven rigidly anti-Islamic secular parties and former communists under the name the Democratic Modernist Pole (DMP). Throughout the country DMP could not garner more than five seats.

The huge win by Ennahdha, followed by CFR represents a total break from the parties and political movements of the corrupt and repressive era of Ben Ali. The collective will of the Tunisian people as embodied by the results of this election was to empower the main groups that associated strongly with moderate Islamic principles and Arab-Islamic identity.

By choosing moderate political groups that were not corrupt or part of the old archaic political structure, the Tunisian people  sent an unambiguous  message that they want moderate Islamists and secularists to work together in establishing democratic governance and building a just socio-economic system, while preserving hard-won freedoms and liberties, as well as respecting human rights and the Arab-Islamic identity of Tunisia.

Upon winning the elections in convincing fashion, Ennahdha gave assurances that it will not impose Islamic social and moral edicts on society, but rather intends to preserve the legal rights given to women with regards to personal status law. It also announced that it would not ban alcohol or bathing suits as its opponents had charged. The day after announcing the elections results Ghannouchi himself met with the leaders of Tunisia’s stock market to assure them of his party’s strong support for vigorous economic growth, especially in the tourism sector. His party’s platform calls for a robust annual economic growth of eight percent.

Ennahdha announced that its Secretary General Hamadi Jebali, 62, a former journalist and engineer by training, would be its candidate for prime minister. He pledged to form a national unity government within a month that will include as many of the elected parties as possible. At minimum, the three major winners with a commanding majority of 141 seats have pledged to work together for the future of Tunisia. Furthermore, in a spirit of reconciliation Jebali announced that Ennahdha’s candidate for interim president would be either Marzouki of CFR or Bin Jaafar of Takattol.

But the major challenges facing the next government are three-fold. Not only should Ennahdha be able to form a unity government, but an effective government that will be able to deliver to the common man and woman in the street physical and economic security as well public services at a moment of tremendous political turmoil and social change. Luckily for the new government the economic challenge was softened this week when Qatar – as a state that has been at the forefront of supporting the Arab Spring – has pledged an immediate economic assistance package of $500 million.

Simultaneously, the elected Assembly must write the new constitution for Tunisia’s second republic within one year. Although the will of the Tunisian people was determined in this election by favoring a moderate Islamic movement and other moderate secular parties, how this might translate into a constitution that will yield a national consensus is a major undertaking and cannot be underestimated.

But perhaps the major immediate challenge facing the new government will be the reaction of the foreign powers, especially in the West, that for decades have been warning against the days where “Islamists” will be empowered.

The memory of the siege and boycott of Hamas following its victory in the Palestinian elections in 2006 is still very vivid. So far, the U.S. administration and its European allies have had a wait and see attitude, despite the noise coming from neo-conservative, Zionist, and right-wing circles. In a span of two weeks, Israeli leaders Bibi Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres, and Tzipi Livni were warning the West against the upcoming “radical Islamic groups” taking charge throughout the Middle East and threatening Israel and Western interests.

The same old Islamophobic voices, that raised false alarms echoing Israeli hyped fears over twenty years ago and poisoned the atmosphere between the West and moderate Islamic groups, are back at it again. The real question now is: Have Western political leaders learned anything during this time or are we about to initiate a predictable sequel to the clash of civilizations?

Esam Al-Amin can be reached at alamin1919@gmail.com

October 28, 2011 Posted by aletho | Aletho News | Leave a comment

U.S. Special Operations In Mexico

Moon of Alabama | October 25, 2011

Three puzzle pieces about operations against Mexican drug cartels let me assume that U.S. Special Forces are involved in recent mass killings of alleged Zeta Cartel members in Mexico.

From a piece which ran on October 20 in the LA Times: Mystery group targets Veracruz drug cartel

VERACRUZ, Mexico — Callers to the radio program were voicing support for the Matazetas, the Zeta killers.Better they fight among themselves. Let them kill each other. Anything to rid us of thugs who long ago took control of our city and are slaughtering our people.
…
Yet, it also comes with a disturbing question: Just who is behind the killings of Zetas? Another drug gang? Agents acting on behalf of the government or military? An ad hoc group whose presence is tolerated by authorities as well as the public?
…
On Sept. 20, nearly three dozen half-naked bodies were dumped in broad daylight on a busy highway underpass in a well-to-do tourist area of Veracruz, the state capital. Fourteen more turned up days later — during a convention of the nation’s top state and federal prosecutors. Then, on Oct. 6, barely 48 hours after announcing a major security offensive, military and police found 36 bodies, and 10 more turned up the next day.

In videotaped presentations, a group of masked men with military bearing have claimed responsibility for the spate of killings, portraying it as a cleansing operation. Many bodies had a “Z” for Zeta written on the back with ink marker, a witness said.

The mystery group announced it was in Veracruz as “the armed branch of the people, and for the people.”

My first thought after reading the above was “That’s JSOC”.

The U.S. Joint Special Operation Command and its Special Mission Units does dirty work against terrorists, often in cooperation with the CIA. It sometimes uses local forces which it trains, supplies with information and leads into combat. It is also quite good at Information Operations, i.e. issuing propaganda in support of its operations. Those callers to the radio program supporting these mass killings may be something other than random radio listening Mexican civilians.

Are such U.S. units involved in extralegal killing of assumed drug gangsters in Mexico?

The Zeta Cartel was founded by 30 former Mexican Army Special Forces. Anyone who wants to fight them needs some superb military capabilities. The success of the Matazetas, the Zeta killers, points to high qualified military trained personal with additionally very good access to information about the gangs.

Today’s NYT adds to the picture on the intelligence side:

As the United States has opened new law enforcement and intelligence outposts across Mexico in recent years, Washington’s networks of informants have grown there as well, current and former officials said. They have helped Mexican authorities capture or kill about two dozen high-ranking and midlevel drug traffickers, and sometimes have given American counternarcotics agents access to the top leaders of the cartels they are trying to dismantle.Typically, the officials said, Mexico is kept in the dark about the United States’ contacts with its most secret informants — including Mexican law enforcement officers, elected officials and cartel operatives — partly because of concerns about corruption among the Mexican police, and partly because of laws prohibiting American security forces from operating on Mexican soil.
…
[T]he United States, hoping to shore up Mexico’s stability and prevent its violence from spilling across the border, has expanded its role in ways unthinkable five years ago, including flying drones in Mexican skies.

U.S. drones over Mexico do not only allow for visual surveillance, which is often useless, but also for the more effective SIGINT, signal intelligence, side of the drone capability. IMSI catcher on board of the drones allow the operators to know the location of each mobile phone in the surveillance area and to listen to what is said through them. If one has the number of a mobile phone of a suspect the drone can find out where the person who carries it is and which other phone carriers that person is meeting. This method of finding assumed suspects and their networks has been used in Iraq and is widely used by JSOC in Afghanistan, often with deadly consequences for innocent civilians.

A third piece for the puzzle comes from a blog post Col. Pat Lang wrote in December 2009: JSOC and the Mexican drug lords

I suggest that [JSOC] should be unleashed on the Mexican drug cartels. Kill or capture. Kill or capture. Those should be the instructions. The legal niceties could be “cleaned up” through arrest or execution warrants. On the other hand, maybe that is not necessary if recent history is a guide.

As one can tell from the dates of the comments to the piece, Pat Lang reissued that post three days ago on the front page of his blog. It is now back in the archives. But why did he republish it?

In recent days there were reports about mysterious mass killing of Zetas by high qualified military personal, acknowledgment of high-tech U.S. intelligence operations against the drug cartels in Mexico and a former Defense Intelligence Agency head relaunched a two year old blog post that demanded JSOC “kill or capture” operations against drug cartels.

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, …

Unlike the Taliban the Zetas do have the capability to hit inside the United States. If JSOC is really operating those death squadrons in Mexico we can soon expect some violent retributions on the northern side of the border.

October 25, 2011 Posted by aletho | Aletho News | Leave a comment

Settlers offer $100,000 “bounty” for anyone who kills two liberated prisoners

Palestine Information Center – 20/10/2011

NABLUS — A Jewish family in Yitzhar settlement near Nablus earmarked the sum of 100000 dollars for anyone killing the two liberated Palestinian prisoners Khuweiled and Nizar Ramadan who have been released in the exchange deal between Israel and Hamas.

Hebrew daily Maariv published the ad in which the family claimed that the prisoners, who were deported one to the Gaza Strip and the other to Turkey, killed two of their relatives 13 years ago.

The ad was published on a website for one of the Jewish fanatic settlers in Hebrew, Arabic, English, and Turkish languages along with a recent photo for the prisoners.

October 20, 2011 Posted by aletho | Aletho News | Leave a comment

Israel To Enforce Harsh Restrictions On Released Detainees

By Saed Bannoura | IMEMC & Agencies | October 19, 2011

Israeli daily, Yedioth Aharonoth, quoted Israeli security officials stating that Israel will be imposing harsh restrictions on West Bank former detainees released under the prisoner-swap deal.

A total of 96 detainees from the West Bank were allowed back home and 14 others were allowed back to Jerusalem.

The detainees will be required to report to the nearest military base on a regular basis. The Israeli paper said that should any of the released detainees be late, even for an hour, harsh measures will be taken against him, including sending them back to prison to serve the remainder of their terms; if they were sentenced to life-terms before their release, they will be arrested to serve the whole sentence.

The Israeli Internal Security imposed these restrictions on nearly half of them, while some of these restrictions include preventing them from leaving their own towns for several years. Several others will have to report to the nearest military base at least once a month.

It also stated that the detainees were informed of these preconditions, and signed the affidavits before they were released, adding that the Palestinian Authority had nothing to do with the deal, but its security forces were informed of the names and residence of the freed detainees.

Furthermore, some Israeli security officials stated that, in the near future, the Palestinian Security Forces will not be arresting released Hamas former prisoners who were sent back in the West Bank, and other Hamas members, in order not to be accused of collaborating with Israel.

The officials added that security cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank has proven to be effective, and that they believe that this cooperation will be further boosted.

Earlier on Tuesday, Israel released 477 Palestinian detainees, as part of the first phase of the Palestinian-Israeli swap deal which includes the release of a total of 1027 Palestinian detainees in exchange for the release of Gilad Shalit.

247 of the released detainees will be sent back to their homes in Gaza, 96 to the West Bank, 14 to Jerusalem, and 6, including one who lives in the Golan Heights, to their towns in the 1948 territories.

All 37 detainees, who were forced into exile as part of the Shalit swap deal Between Hamas and Israel, arrived in Syria, Qatar and Turkey, while the exiled female detainee, Ahlam Tamimi, was sent to Amman – Jordan.

10 detainees were sent to Turkey, 16 to Syria, 15 to Qatar while Tamimi was sent to Jordan. They were all airlifted from Cairo to the countries that agreed to host them.

Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, arrived back in Israel and was welcomed by Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, in addition to several political, military and security leaders.

In related news, U.S State Department Spokesperson, Mark Toner, said that Washington is concerned over the release of some of the detainees. He did not elaborate on the issue, but only stated that his government informed Israel of its position.

October 19, 2011 Posted by aletho | Aletho News | Leave a comment

Prisoner exchange deal reached between Hamas and Israel

By Khalid Amayreh – Palestine Information Center – 10/10/2011

After losing all hopes for rescuing imprisoned Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who is held in the Gaza Strip, Israel has apparently agreed to accept virtually all Hamas’s conditions for a prisoner swap deal that would also see the release from Israeli jails and dungeons of as many as a thousand Palestinian prisoners, including men, women, and children.

Israeli prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu said an agreement with Hamas had been reached and that Shalit would be returning home in the coming days.

Speaking during an emergency session of his cabinet Tuesday evening, Netanyahu said there was a window of opportunity to release Shalit which he said the government decided to seize.

Acting otherwise, he added, and in light of the “storms” blowing throughout the Arab world, could mean that “Shalit may never come back.”

Netanyahu was apparently alluding to the Arab Spring and the collapse of pro-Israeli regimes in both Egypt and Tunisia .

Hamas’ officials in the Gaza Strip and abroad have confirmed the conclusion of a swap agreement with Israel.

In Damascus, Hamas’ leader Khaled Mishaal revealed details of the long-awaited deal. He told an impromptu news conference in the Syrian capital that the swap deal stipulated the release of a thousand male prisoners as well as 27 female prisoners.

He also pointed out that the deal would see prisoners with multiple life-imprisonment terms from Jerusalem and the Arab community in Israel released.

Mishaal added that the deal would be carried out in two stages, first the transfer of Shalit outside the Gaza Strip, which would coincide with the release of 450 Palestinian prisoners, and second the release of the rest of the prisoners once Shalit returns to Israel.

Mishaal saluted the people of Gaza for their sacrifices and also thanked Egypt , Turkey , Syria and Germany for their positive roles in concluding the deal.

Abu Ubaida, a resistance Islamist leader in Gaza told al-Jazeera Television Tuesday night that the agreement was a landmark victory for Hamas and other Palestinian resistance factions.

“This is a great victory for the Palestinian people. We send this gift to the martyrs, including Sheikh Ahmed Yasin.”

He said that Israel was forced to accede to virtually all the demands and conditions of Hamas.

According to the agreement, all women and children prisoners will also be freed.

Among prisoner leaders to be released are the main commanders of Hamas’s resistance wing including Abdullah Barghouthi, Yahya Sinwar, Abdullah al Sayed as well as leaders of the Islamic Jihad organization. Marwan el Barghouthi, the imprisoned Fatah leader, and Ahmed Saadat, Secretary-General of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) will be among the freed prisoners.

A spokesman of the resistance movement in Gaza, Abu Mujahed, attributed the success of the deal to “the resilience and unflinching determination of the resistance to see to it that all our demands are met.”

“It was not easy, but eventually we are about to get what we wanted.”

He added that Palestinian freedom fighters knew from the very inception that Israel wouldn’t agree to free that many prisoners unless it was forced to.

“Israel only understands this language.”

Abu Mujahed said the deal also stipulated that Israel would meet all the demands of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails who have gone on an open-ended hunger strike in protest against worsening prison conditions.

Egypt reportedly played a key role in concluding the deal.

An Egyptian official was quoted as saying that “after 64 months of tough negotiations we were able to complete the deal. It was a very difficult task, which included thousands of hours of negotiations.”

Egyptian officials have also said that the deal which has been reached also includes the release of accused Israeli spy Ilan Garpel.

During deliberations leading up to the Israeli acceptance of the deal, Netanyahu reportedly told his ministers that failing to endorse the deal would probably doom Shalit’s fate forever.

“If the government fails to approve the deal, the whole move to release Shalit could go down the drain, conceivably postponing his release by many years.”

Netanyahu spoke of “powerful storms” hovering over the Arab world, which he said would make rescuing Shalit utterly unlikely if the government didn’t seize this opportunity.

The deal is widely viewed as a great moral and political booster for Hamas. It is also likely to contribute to further enhancing relations between Hamas and Cairo.

Moreover, many Palestinians feel the deal will be especially auspicious in terms of pushing national reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas forward.

Hamas’s fighters, along with fighters from the People Resistance and Army of Islam took part in the military operation on 25 June, 2006, during which Shalit was taken prisoners.

Israel tried in vain every conceivable feat and trick to repatriate Shalit, including launching widespread and murderous aggressions against the Gaza Strip in which thousands of Palestinians lost their lives.

October 11, 2011 Posted by aletho | Aletho News | Leave a comment

Hezbollah Urges Brothers in Egypt to Adopt Dialogue to Resolve Crises

Al-Manar | October 11, 2011

Hezbollah expressed its deep sorrow regarding the events that took place in Egypt during the past hours which claimed the lives of many Egyptian people.

In a statement issued Monday, Hezbollah believed that “such events present a kind of sedition planned by the enemies of Egypt and the Arabs, Muslims and Christians.”

“What is happening is an integral part of the American project aimed at the overall fragmentation of the region based on racial, religious and ethnic basis,” the statement read.

Hezbollah called on brothers in Egypt to be aware of the dangers plotted against them and urged them to adopt dialogue as a means to resolve problems and crises.

October 11, 2011 Posted by aletho | Aletho News | Leave a comment

Medvedev: Russia to Veto Toppling Various Regimes by West

Al-Manar | October 8, 2011

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev warned Friday that Russia would veto future U.N. Security Council sanctions aimed at toppling anti-western political regimes by Western powers.

“Russia will continue standing against attempts to legitimize through the U.N. Security Council unilateral sanctions aimed at toppling various regimes,” Medvedev said.

“The U.N. was not created for that,” Medvedev said, “We should recognize clearly that the goal of the U.N. and especially the U.N. Security Council, which bears special responsibility for the fate of world peace, is not to give a pretext for drawing up documents allowing the attainment of certain ends in a military way.”

In his meeting with members of the Russian Security Council, the president also said that the Syrian leadership will have to leave office if it cannot carry out necessary reforms but stressed that the decision should be only made by the Syrian people.

“If the Syrian leadership is unable to complete such reforms, it will have to go. But this decision should not be made by NATO or certain European countries, it should be made by the Syrian people and the Syrian government,” Medvedev said. Russia is interested in an early end to the crisis in Syria, he added.

Russia on Tuesday vetoed a U.N. Security Council draft resolution on Syria, saying the draft was based on “a philosophy of confrontation” and ran counter to a peaceful settlement of the crisis.

October 8, 2011 Posted by aletho | Aletho News | Leave a comment