" Six children were among seven civilians killed in a NATO airstrike in southern Afghanistan, Afghan officials said Thursday."
Friday, November 25, 2011
ICC: International Criminal Court against Africa
"Many hope the court will broaden its geographical ambit, although any such move will face huge political obstacles. No member of the UN Security Council has ever been in the court’s sights; indeed only two permanent council members, Britain and France, belong to it. All five countries where villains are expected to go to The Hague (see table) are in Africa. This year the court has also become involved in Côte d’Ivoire and Libya. In three cases, the countries themselves called in the court; but this narrow focus has made many African governments suspicious of a body which has many member states—119 and rising—but big absentees, from America to India to most Middle Eastern countries.
The list of places where the court says it is carrying out preliminary investigations is broad enough: Afghanistan, Colombia, Georgia, Gaza, Honduras and the Korean peninsula, as well as Guinea and Nigeria. But the total number of staff involved in those initial probes is a bare handful. The court’s resources are overwhelmingly directed at a single continent. All 26 of the suspects publicly indicted by the court have been African; of those in the court’s custody, four are Congolese and one a Rwandan wanted for crimes in Congo." (thanks Ahmet)
The list of places where the court says it is carrying out preliminary investigations is broad enough: Afghanistan, Colombia, Georgia, Gaza, Honduras and the Korean peninsula, as well as Guinea and Nigeria. But the total number of staff involved in those initial probes is a bare handful. The court’s resources are overwhelmingly directed at a single continent. All 26 of the suspects publicly indicted by the court have been African; of those in the court’s custody, four are Congolese and one a Rwandan wanted for crimes in Congo." (thanks Ahmet)
Bahrain royal dependent commission report
Angry Arab's chief Bahrain correspondent adds more comments on the report: "I skimmed the report. Here are my comments:
- The Commission was established under a royal mandate. If you read the section on the mandate you will realize a couple of things:
A) the mandate implies that the King will not be investigated. The Commission operates under the assumption that the King is innocent. In addition, the Commission is paid for by the King. Therefore, the results of the Commission's report will necessarily be different from the results of a truly independent commission.
B) The Commission must provide both a context in which the events occured and investigate the violations. They must do this under a specific time frame. There is no way they can come up with an accurate narrative and a context within such a short time frame. We already know that the Commission employees worked very long hours and were overwhelmed by the task they had.
- The Commission's investigation occurred under a climate of fear. Arrests and attacks continued to take place during the investigation. As a result, many people were too scared to file a complaint with the commission. I personally do not know anyone who filed a complaint with the Commission. In addition, Bassiouni's numerous interviews with the press and the statements that he made eroded the peoples trust in the Commission and confirmed the pre-existing perception that Bassiouni would be biased towards the government.
- The Commission's narrative concerning the events at the hospital contradicted the reports published by Human Rights Watch, Physicians for Human Rights, and Doctors without Borders. All three organizations were present in Bahrain during the period of marshall law. Since the case of the doctors caused so much international outrage, the government spent a lot of effort fabricating evidence regarding the events that took place in the main hospital. The Commission also ignores the military takeover of one of the village clinics, the destruction of another clinic, and the attack of the private Bahrain International Hospital.
- The report makes mention of unamed groups that attack and in some instances kill civilians. The unnamed groups are the government Baltajiya. Bahrainis cannot carry weapons of any kind. The Commission did not mention this. As a result, the people conducting the attacks must either part of the security forces or must have been given weapons by the regime.
- The use of force against civilians was downplayed. The Commission makes no mention of jets and helicopters flying very low in villages. It states that there is no evidence of a systemic policy on behalf of the BDF and the security forces. It does talk about the excessive use of teargas and the disproportionate use of force in some instances.
- As I said previously, the report fails to state that there was a systemic policy by the government to crush the protest movement. However this could be because the time frame they were given and not because they were unsincere.
- The sections on the dismissed employees, dismissed students, arrests, and torture were all fair.
- The Commission downplays the destruction of the mosques stating that several of the mosques did not have permits. What it fails to state is that many mosques were built before permits even existed, there are many buildings in Bahrain that exist without permits, and the implementation of laws concerning permits is inconsistent. To its credit, the commission does mention that there is some confusion due to the fact that the mosques were under the authority of the Jafari waqf which is a semigovermental authority (need to study bahrains history to know why that is). It also does mention the contradiction in the explanations given by the government regarding the destruction of the mosques: they sometimes say that they were destroyed because they had no permit and at other times said that they were destroyed because they supposedly were hiding weapons.
- The Commission says that the media did use derogatory speech but there was no evidence of hate speech or incitements of violence. The Commission did talk about the @7areghum twitter account which identified protestors and incited hatred. It did not connect the account to the Ministry of Interior although it did state that @7areghum asked people to provide him with names and that those names will be passed to the relevant authorities. The Commission ignores threatening statements by royal family members such as that of the Kings son Nasser Bin Hamed threatening to clear Bahrain of the protestors. The Commission also ignores statements by important figures such as Adel Fleifel in which he threatens violence against protestors and talks about the creation of sunni militias.
- The Commission states that there is no evidence that the Pennisula Shield used any force against civilians. This contradicts what many people I know personally have experienced.
- The Commission also states that there is no evidence of Iranian involvement.
- The Commission for some reason concludes that the opposition rejected dialogue. But if you read the pages of the report concerning the dialogue with the Crown Prince you will see that the opposition did not only enter into a dialogue with the Crown Prince but it also accepted a US proposal which the government rejected. I suggest you read this section. It is the most interesting section of the report.
- The narrative concerning the protests is also an interesting read. I skimmed through it so I cannot comment properly but the report does state many truths: the protests were inspired by the Arab spring and had its roots in Bahrains political context and the protestors had local grievences, the protests were not sectarian, the protests were not started by the legal opposition groups, the first death caused the protests to swell in number, the protestors were first calling for reforms but then started calling for a republic because of the governments violent response, and the coalition for a republic did not call for an islamic republic.
- there are inconsistencies between the english version of the report and the arabic version of the report. For example, the arabic version mentions the ridiculous 12 point flag. The arabic version did not.
- The Commission does not address allegations that I believe 3 royal family members including the Kings son Nasser Bin Hamad directly tortured prisoners.
- Commission recommendations are weak. There should be immediate reinstatement of dismissed workers and students and immediate release of prisoners and the dropping of all charges. We do not need to establish an independent commission to investigate this.
- All in all the report indicates that excessive force against protestors were used and that the protestors were protesting within their rights. It accuses the government of torture, creating a culture of fear, mass arrests and the disproportionate use of force. If this is the case then there are only two conclusions that I can reach: Either the King did not know what was going on (difficult for a country as tiny as Bahrain) or had no power to stop it and is therefore incompetent.. If this is the case then he should not be allowed to rule. Or everything that happened occured under the Kings blessing. Also, if a Commission appointed by and paid by the King, operating under a time limit, and in an atmosphere of mistrust and continued violations reached these conclusions, what conclusions would a truly independent commission trusted by the people and operating at a time of peace reach??
- The conclusions of the report are dangerous for the government despite the reports weaknesses. Since iranian involvement is the main reason given for Saudi involvement and the crackdown, the regime is now put on the defensive. Also the regime denied the use of excessive force and torture. Its main reason for firing the workers is that the strike was not within the law. This will also have repucussions for the case brought by the main labor union in the US against Bahrain in which they claim that Bahrain violated the provisions of the free trade agreement. Saudi and Bahraini media are freaking out and publishing lies about what the report said or focusing on small sections of the report that criticize the protestors.
The state deparment and the white house's press releases urge the Bahraini government to implement the recommendations of the Commission. What they are forgetting here is that the problem is political. Compensating the families of the dead and establishing laws against torture will not stop the protests. You must remember that Bahrainis were fooled by the King before when he imposed the 2002 constitution on us.
The report is obviously flawed - the commission isn't independent. It is created by the King. Why do people like ignoring that? I honestly don't understand why any self respecting human rights lawyer would have agreed to be part of this commission but for some reason these commissioners did. Now, I wouldn't have this big of a problem with the report if the Commission clearly stated the parameters of the investigation. They should have stated clearly that they will not be investigating the king and that they are operating under the premise that he has nothing to do with the crackdown. Of course the nature of the investigation implies this but they did not state this clearly.
- The Commission was established under a royal mandate. If you read the section on the mandate you will realize a couple of things:
A) the mandate implies that the King will not be investigated. The Commission operates under the assumption that the King is innocent. In addition, the Commission is paid for by the King. Therefore, the results of the Commission's report will necessarily be different from the results of a truly independent commission.
B) The Commission must provide both a context in which the events occured and investigate the violations. They must do this under a specific time frame. There is no way they can come up with an accurate narrative and a context within such a short time frame. We already know that the Commission employees worked very long hours and were overwhelmed by the task they had.
- The Commission's investigation occurred under a climate of fear. Arrests and attacks continued to take place during the investigation. As a result, many people were too scared to file a complaint with the commission. I personally do not know anyone who filed a complaint with the Commission. In addition, Bassiouni's numerous interviews with the press and the statements that he made eroded the peoples trust in the Commission and confirmed the pre-existing perception that Bassiouni would be biased towards the government.
- The Commission's narrative concerning the events at the hospital contradicted the reports published by Human Rights Watch, Physicians for Human Rights, and Doctors without Borders. All three organizations were present in Bahrain during the period of marshall law. Since the case of the doctors caused so much international outrage, the government spent a lot of effort fabricating evidence regarding the events that took place in the main hospital. The Commission also ignores the military takeover of one of the village clinics, the destruction of another clinic, and the attack of the private Bahrain International Hospital.
- The report makes mention of unamed groups that attack and in some instances kill civilians. The unnamed groups are the government Baltajiya. Bahrainis cannot carry weapons of any kind. The Commission did not mention this. As a result, the people conducting the attacks must either part of the security forces or must have been given weapons by the regime.
- The use of force against civilians was downplayed. The Commission makes no mention of jets and helicopters flying very low in villages. It states that there is no evidence of a systemic policy on behalf of the BDF and the security forces. It does talk about the excessive use of teargas and the disproportionate use of force in some instances.
- As I said previously, the report fails to state that there was a systemic policy by the government to crush the protest movement. However this could be because the time frame they were given and not because they were unsincere.
- The sections on the dismissed employees, dismissed students, arrests, and torture were all fair.
- The Commission downplays the destruction of the mosques stating that several of the mosques did not have permits. What it fails to state is that many mosques were built before permits even existed, there are many buildings in Bahrain that exist without permits, and the implementation of laws concerning permits is inconsistent. To its credit, the commission does mention that there is some confusion due to the fact that the mosques were under the authority of the Jafari waqf which is a semigovermental authority (need to study bahrains history to know why that is). It also does mention the contradiction in the explanations given by the government regarding the destruction of the mosques: they sometimes say that they were destroyed because they had no permit and at other times said that they were destroyed because they supposedly were hiding weapons.
- The Commission says that the media did use derogatory speech but there was no evidence of hate speech or incitements of violence. The Commission did talk about the @7areghum twitter account which identified protestors and incited hatred. It did not connect the account to the Ministry of Interior although it did state that @7areghum asked people to provide him with names and that those names will be passed to the relevant authorities. The Commission ignores threatening statements by royal family members such as that of the Kings son Nasser Bin Hamed threatening to clear Bahrain of the protestors. The Commission also ignores statements by important figures such as Adel Fleifel in which he threatens violence against protestors and talks about the creation of sunni militias.
- The Commission states that there is no evidence that the Pennisula Shield used any force against civilians. This contradicts what many people I know personally have experienced.
- The Commission also states that there is no evidence of Iranian involvement.
- The Commission for some reason concludes that the opposition rejected dialogue. But if you read the pages of the report concerning the dialogue with the Crown Prince you will see that the opposition did not only enter into a dialogue with the Crown Prince but it also accepted a US proposal which the government rejected. I suggest you read this section. It is the most interesting section of the report.
- The narrative concerning the protests is also an interesting read. I skimmed through it so I cannot comment properly but the report does state many truths: the protests were inspired by the Arab spring and had its roots in Bahrains political context and the protestors had local grievences, the protests were not sectarian, the protests were not started by the legal opposition groups, the first death caused the protests to swell in number, the protestors were first calling for reforms but then started calling for a republic because of the governments violent response, and the coalition for a republic did not call for an islamic republic.
- there are inconsistencies between the english version of the report and the arabic version of the report. For example, the arabic version mentions the ridiculous 12 point flag. The arabic version did not.
- The Commission does not address allegations that I believe 3 royal family members including the Kings son Nasser Bin Hamad directly tortured prisoners.
- Commission recommendations are weak. There should be immediate reinstatement of dismissed workers and students and immediate release of prisoners and the dropping of all charges. We do not need to establish an independent commission to investigate this.
- All in all the report indicates that excessive force against protestors were used and that the protestors were protesting within their rights. It accuses the government of torture, creating a culture of fear, mass arrests and the disproportionate use of force. If this is the case then there are only two conclusions that I can reach: Either the King did not know what was going on (difficult for a country as tiny as Bahrain) or had no power to stop it and is therefore incompetent.. If this is the case then he should not be allowed to rule. Or everything that happened occured under the Kings blessing. Also, if a Commission appointed by and paid by the King, operating under a time limit, and in an atmosphere of mistrust and continued violations reached these conclusions, what conclusions would a truly independent commission trusted by the people and operating at a time of peace reach??
- The conclusions of the report are dangerous for the government despite the reports weaknesses. Since iranian involvement is the main reason given for Saudi involvement and the crackdown, the regime is now put on the defensive. Also the regime denied the use of excessive force and torture. Its main reason for firing the workers is that the strike was not within the law. This will also have repucussions for the case brought by the main labor union in the US against Bahrain in which they claim that Bahrain violated the provisions of the free trade agreement. Saudi and Bahraini media are freaking out and publishing lies about what the report said or focusing on small sections of the report that criticize the protestors.
The state deparment and the white house's press releases urge the Bahraini government to implement the recommendations of the Commission. What they are forgetting here is that the problem is political. Compensating the families of the dead and establishing laws against torture will not stop the protests. You must remember that Bahrainis were fooled by the King before when he imposed the 2002 constitution on us.
The report is obviously flawed - the commission isn't independent. It is created by the King. Why do people like ignoring that? I honestly don't understand why any self respecting human rights lawyer would have agreed to be part of this commission but for some reason these commissioners did. Now, I wouldn't have this big of a problem with the report if the Commission clearly stated the parameters of the investigation. They should have stated clearly that they will not be investigating the king and that they are operating under the premise that he has nothing to do with the crackdown. Of course the nature of the investigation implies this but they did not state this clearly.
Now even if we ignore this obvious flaw,they could have made bold recommendations. A bold recommendation would be to call for the resignation of the entire government - even if the report did not establish a clear link (for obvious political reasons) between the violations and the government, the fact that all of this occurred at the very least proves that the government is incompetent. Lets say they don't want to be this bold: The least they should have called for an immediate reinstatement of the workers and students, the release of all prisoners and the dropping of all charges.A lot of people that I talked to are more positive on the report than I am. They believe that the report can be used to force the government to resign. I do see their point - it has a lot of good things and Omar AlShehabi did outline them in his article. But to do that they would have to make a legal argument and that will take time. The report leaves it up to you to make the conclusions - of course for people against the government the conclusions are obvious. But since they are not clearly written down the government can buy time and argue otherwise as they are doing now.
I agree with what Mansour AlJamri said in the article by Anthony Shadid. Since the Commission recommended that they establish a "committee" thats what will happen. The government will keep establishing committees to buy time. I can see that happening - look at how they are reacting. They are now claiming that they have classified evidence that the protesters have links to Iran even though this is not the case. The only way the King can possibly pull this off (i.e. exonerate himself and the monarchy) is if, and only if, he quickly reinstated the workers, released the prisoners, dropped all charges, and forced the government to resign. Now even if he did that he would still have to step down because no one wants him anymore, even the people who would be satisfied with a constitutional monarchy. But instead they are talking about establishing committees. Meanwhile, people are still protesting. They are still being attacked.
I do not like the opposition's initial response (haven't been keeping up with the news so maybe that changed). They should have simply stated that the report more or less what they have been saying for months and then just reiterated their demands. Instead they are saying that they want the UN to form the committee instead of the government. Come on.. we don't need any committees. What needs to happen is obvious.
As for the article you linked to, why is he putting the burden on the people? The government hasn't made any concessions so far except for this commission which told us what we already now.Also - people have moved beyond the solutions that this commission can bring. I mean if the recommendations were implemented before Feb 14 this would have been great. Now this is a full blown uprising. Don't know how it will end. We are a small country - only 1 million people. Only half are Bahrainis. They expats are mostly pro-government or are neutral or silent. Thats a lot of people. On top of that you have a vocal sizable minority that is pro-government. You also have a rapid illegal political naturalization program which is changing the demographie country to make sure that the majority in the country is pro-monarchy. "
A Call for lynching on LBC TV
The racist, sectarian, and right-wing news station that was founded as the propaganda arm of Bashir Gemayyel, LBC TV, has done it again. Watch this clip and watch the racist vomit against Syrians and the call for lynching of the accused murderer. (thanks Maha)
The White Man in our Lands: an American student at AUB
Somebody at AUB forwarded to me this email by an American student at the American University of Beirut to the Office International Programs (I withheld her name): "As an international and American student, I was disappointed to learn that the Lebanese movie night, which is geared toward international students, was being held on Thanksgiving, a very important American holiday. With a large number of the international students at AUB being American, the decision to host an event on one of our most important holidays is disrepectful and seems to blatantly prohibit American attendence. In the future, it would be nice if events could be planned with everyone in mind so that it would be possible for students to celebrate their most important holidays as well as attend AUB International Student events." Who do those white European and American visitors in Arab lands think they are? What sense of entitlement do they seem to possess? Imagine a visiting Arab student at an American University here in the US protest to the campus officials because they did not observe the Karamah Battle or some event that only Arabs care about? What kind of chutzpah is this?
He is not a crook
The brother of Jordanian queen, Rania of past Youtube fame, finally commented on all the news and talk about his corruption. He said that he is not a crook and wants you to know that.
Partition of Palestine
Thousands demonstrate in Jordan to commemorate the anniversary of the partition of Palestine. (thanks Joseph)
Those lousy Muslim Brotherhood
The Muslims Brotherhood are the scoundrels of political: they are always seeking refuge in the last refuge of Middle East scoundrels. They are embarrassed by their political cowardice vis-a-vis the Military Council so they suddenly remember Jerusalem and the Aqsa mosque (when the contributions of the Muslim Brotherhood in all its branches over the years have amounted to...nothing, literally, unless you count their services to pro-Israeli Arab regimes). They suddenly decide to dedicate a march in Tahriri to Al-Aqsa Mosque. Those demagogues want to divert attention from the radical agenda of Egyptian revolutionaries. But Palestinians were on alert: they formed groups on Facebook and sent letters asking the Brotherhood to not do what Arab regimes do: exploit Palestine for cheap political ends.
Racist (sectarian) festival in Lebanon
"But that’s not the story we’re hearing everywhere. What we’re hearing is: A young, Christian, virgin woman, 28, takes a 20-minute walk from her home to a church to pray, and gets raped and murdered by a Syrian worker.
And so the anger and outrage becomes Christian anger against Syrians. The family thirsts for his blood. They want to lynch him in the public square of Jounieh. They feel wronged as a religious community. This is violence from Syrians towards all Christians, and the Christians are too forgiving, they say. And they stress that Myriam was a practicing believer. She was not out in Gemmayze at 1am, they say. She was on her way to pray.
Nationality and religion have nothing to do with why Myriam was attacked. Really. I am not justifying the murder, God forbid anyone should justify the crime. And the rapist murderer, Fathi Jaber Al-Salatini should be tried, and if convicted, go to jail until he dies. I’m just stating a fact. Nationality and religion have nothing to do with the violence Myriam faced. What time it was, what she was wearing, what she was on her way to do, none of that matters. She was still brutally violated and her barbaric murder was not motivated by theft or hatred. It was motivated by rape.
Her story is, very sadly, not unique. I have heard dozens of stories about rape, from people and from survivors themselves. And so have you. If you haven’t, it just means that the women around you are not talking to you about it. In fact, the women in Lebanon are not talking about rape at all." (thanks Mohammad)
Bassioni's Bahraini contract?
This needs to be investigated. Did Mr. Bassioni really sign a contract on behalf of the company that he owns with the Bahraini government to train security forces on Human Rights? I will get confirmation on this and let you know.
The Royal Bahraini Commission
I am seeing a bit of the media round that Bassioni (whom I never trusted in this job that came out of a US initiate to save the royal family) is doing and wondering: why no one mentions that this is not an "independent" commission when the royal family is in charge of it in every way, despite the criticisms that never amounted to an indictment of the regime which is fully and solely responsible for the crimes committed. Bassioni's interview on Al-Arabiyya only lacked a testimony by him that human rights can only be respected under Wahhabi rule.
Omar Al-Shihabi in the Guardian: the Bahrain Royal report
I met Omar at Oxford University a few years ago and he left an excellent impression on me. I read this piece by him in the Guardian and was more than disappointed. First, Omar should have mentioned a conflict of interest: my sources tell me that he in fact was hired to do research for the Dependent Bahrain Royal Commission. In fact, I am told that he worked on the historical section, for which he offers praise here. This should have been pointed out to the readers up front, although I am told that he added a comment in the comments section under the article to indicate his involvement. If I am not mistaken, Omar also attended the royal party that accompanied the release of the report. So all that should have been pointed out to the readers. I fault Omar for this and fault the Guardian for failing its readership. Secondly, I did not like the article one bit. It makes the conflict in Bahrain one pitting one (sectarian) side against another (sectarian) side, when the conflict is really between the ruling dynasty and the population, although the ruler resorts to sectarian agitation and mobilization to bolster his rule and to justify the Saudi/UAE military intervention. Omar made the conflict in Bahrain--not different from the conflict in Syria, Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan--into a dispute for which people need to hug and kiss and let bygone be bygone. I don't relish writing this comment here at all. It pains me due to the very high regard in which I have held Omar.
On those superior Lebanese Christians
"This, of course, is beside the fact that for many Lebanese—albeit mainly Christians—multilingualism and the appeal of Western languages is simply a way of heeding history and adhering to the country's hybrid ethnic and linguistic heritage." (thanks Daniel)
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat is thrilled: US ambassador appears in Saudi dress
How insecure they are. Saudi mouthpiece of Prince Salman and his sons, Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat, celebrates the fact that US ambassador, the White Man himself, appears with his wife in Saudi dress. (thanks Mohammad)
Saudi government on protests in Qatif
Notice that the language of Saudi government about protests in Qatif is exactly like the language of the Syrian government about protests in Syria. The protests in both cases are made to be "criminal" elements with foreign links.
Pro-Syrian propaganda
Some of the most outrageous and kooky analysis of international affairs I see and read in Syrian regime media. In this analysis, for example, the children of Dir`a who wrote anti-regime graffiti are part of a global conspiracy. Kid you not.
Terminology of New York Times
"Since January, when Mr. Hariri’s government was toppled by a Hezbollah-led coalition known as March 8". Toppled? It lost is majority in parliament because shifty Walid Jumblat shifted.
John Hopkins
I have a copy of the alleged PhD dissertation by war criminal, Rif`at Al-Asad (Saudi Arabia's favorite Syrian). In the sources, he mentions a book published by John Hopkins University Press. So he thinks that John Hopkins is the author: so he says: Mr. John Hopkins, etc.
PS Full disclosure. He knew my late father. Once in the mid-1970s, he dropped by our house in Sawfar during the summer. He gave my father a gift: a fancy AK47 with tons of accessories. I remember he was wearing a white suit.
PS Full disclosure. He knew my late father. Once in the mid-1970s, he dropped by our house in Sawfar during the summer. He gave my father a gift: a fancy AK47 with tons of accessories. I remember he was wearing a white suit.
Will Israel pay the PA?
Here is a PA source on why Israel will end up transferring tax revenues to the collaborationist regime in Ramallah: "In the end, it is in their interest to help us.”" This is the first time ever I find myself agreeing with a PA official.
Welcome to America
"Still, the numbers of Iraqi students attending universities in the United States are much lower than they were under Saddam Hussein — 423 last year, the Institute of International Education says, compared with more than 1,500 in 1985."
CIA Station Chief in Lebanon is an anti-Semite?
Hasan `Illayq, a fine journalist and investigative reporter for Al-Akhbar, writes on the CIA station in Lebanon based on Lebanese security sources who dealt with him. He says that his Lebanese contacts heard him make anti-Semitic comments. I have to say this: I am really proud that Al-Akhbar is the only Arabic newspaper--the only one--that is sensitive to anti-Semitism. I know of no other paper that has that sensitivity. I am not saying it is perfect, of course.
Gaddis on Kennan
"Mr Gaddis is unequivocal on this topic. He told the New York Times in 2004 that “American imperial power…has been a remarkable force for good, for democracy, for prosperity.” He has also expressed his admiration for the former presidents, Ronald Reagan and George Bush junior, and their versions of “grand strategy”, a topic he now teaches at Yale University. All of these developments have naturally given rise to much speculation. Could Mr Gaddis, who admits that he speaks no foreign languages, get on top of the mountain of material and do credit to such an international polymath?" (The Economist answered in the affirmative).
Disgrace unto the Nations
"In any event, parliamentarians in Mr Netanyahu’s coalition have been hounding human-rights groups, which consist mainly of secular left-wingers who often depend on funds from European governments and charities. The cabinet has just endorsed two bills to stop foreign governments from giving grants of more than $6,000 to Israeli human-rights outfits. Another bill raises tenfold the ceiling for libel fines. Yet another threatens to ban Arabs who shy from singing Israel’s anthem, which celebrates the Jewish yearning for Zion, from playing football for Israel."
Unpopular truths about Afghanistan
"He demolishes some Western myths about Afghanistan that betray short memories and government spin. The Soviet years, for example, tend to be portrayed as a period of bitter repression under a puppet regime, which was defeated by a popular, Islamist uprising, backed by America and Pakistan, and which crumbled as soon as the Soviet Union withdrew its occupation forces in 1989.
There is another way of looking at the same history. At no stage did the Soviet Union have as many troops in Afghanistan as America and ISAF do now. It was never defeated. It withdrew because Mikhail Gorbachev realised the Soviets could never win. The regime they left behind was quite resilient. Only as the Soviet Union began to unravel in 1991 and withdraw its aid did the regime collapse shortly after. The mujahideen boast of having brought down the Soviet Union. The reverse is just as true: it was the collapse of the Soviet Union that brought the mujahideen to power.
There are some uncanny echoes between the two interventions. The Soviets and the Americans both allocated 15 times as much to military spending in the country as to civilian spending. Soviet resentment at the ingratitude of the client regime is matched in America. This month ISAF had to sack an American general for voicing it. Neither the West nor the Soviet Union is predominantly Muslim, enabling their enemies to decry the “infidel” regimes they back. Both wars became very unpopular at home. ISAF, like the Soviet army, has established solid-looking structures in the north, which is largely inhabited by smaller ethnic groups, such as Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras. But it still faces a serious insurgency in the Pushtun-dominated south and east, fuelled from Pakistan."
Newt
"Over the past year the demagoguery has got the upper hand. Mr Gingrich prophesies the end of “America as we know it” under a president running a “corrupt, Chicago-style political machine” from the White House. In the summer of 2010 he reacted to plans to build a mosque in lower Manhattan by saying that American Muslims should not be allowed to do so until Saudi Arabia permitted the building of churches and synagogues. He claims that Islamic sharia law is taking over the American legal system by stealth and he wants to abolish the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit because its judges are too liberal. That such a flawed and divisive politician has come to be seen as the shrewd elder statesman of the Republican presidential field is testimony only to the paucity of the alternatives."
One trillion dollars to the US from House of Saud
This Saudi publication maintains that the House of Saud will offer an investment package worth one trillion dollars to the US. Are there any other reports on this anywhere? (thanks Harith)
Saudi media and the Bahrain commission
Saudi media are outraged at the Bahrain commission. Their reaction is typical of Saudi media when they are angry: they tend to lie more and omit more. I went to the loud and vulgar Saudi outlet, Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat, (the mouthpiece of Prince Salman and his sons) and found no reference whatsoever. There was one item on Bahrain: that the Saudi King talked on the phone with the Bahraini King. Kid you not. The website of Al-Arabiyya (the news station of King Fahd's brother-in-law) had this headline about the report: "The Protesters targeted Sunnis". Kid you not. They also posted what they claimed was an interview with Bassioni in which he repeated the same allegation: can someone verify if this interview did indeed take place? You have to read Al-Arabiyya article on the report to see the extent to which Saudi media brazenly lie and cheat and deceive and fabricate. But what does one expect from media tied to House of Saud? Obviously, the report has proven to be embarrassing to the GCC alliance of repression.
PS I am told that the print edition of the paper has a story on the front page on the Bahrain report but I can't find it on the site itself. I did see the PDF cover page of the paper and it is there but not on the site. Too embarrassing for those propagandists?
PS I am told that the print edition of the paper has a story on the front page on the Bahrain report but I can't find it on the site itself. I did see the PDF cover page of the paper and it is there but not on the site. Too embarrassing for those propagandists?
Syrian Observatory for Human Rights
I treat all that come out of Syrian regime media as lies until the contrary is proven. I now officially treat the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights in the same way. I will consider all that comes out from the Observatory as lies until the reverse is proven. I have seen its director making the rounds and keenly paying tributes to Gulf countries, one by one. A human rights organization that is beholden to GCC repressive countries can't be taken seriously. Yet, most "information" on Syria in the Western (and Saudi and Qatari-owned Arab) press comes from this observatory.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Barenboim II
And this guy asks Palestinians to forswear violence but never ever asks Israel to forswear violence. What do you call that except a propaganda service for Israeli crimes. We should ask this horrible man to stop invoking the name of Edward Said to peddle his Zionist agenda.
Ian kershaw
Kershaw in his Popular Opinion and Political Dissent in the Third Reich makes a stronger case about German attitudes and lethal indifference than the thesis by Daniel goldhagen. The book is now in a new edition and is a great read. He is not an apologist for the German people as a crude writer may suggest but argues that their indifference made the holocaust possible.
Daniel Barenboim
I am sitting at sf airport and reading an article in the Economist's The World in 2012. This man Barenboim is an enemy of the Palestinian people and propagandist for Zionism. He not only calls on Palestinians to forswear armed resistance but calls on them to "recognize the reality of Israel's existence.". I can see him calling on Palestinians to bow down before the white man. Someone needs to tell this man that realities can be changed. Only years left.
Please welcome the NATO republic of Libya
"Thousands of people, including women and children, are being illegally detained by rebel militias in Libya, according to a report by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Many of the prisoners are suffering torture and systematic mistreatment while being held in private jails outside the control of the country's new government. The document, seen by The Independent, states that while political prisoners being held by the Gaddafi regime have been released, their places have been taken by up to 7,000 new “enemies of the state”, "disappeared" in a dysfunctional system, with no recourse to the law."
After Mubarak: Zionist panic
"And the Maariv newspaper reported that Israel's army chief Benny Gantz "has presented to the security cabinet a scenario involving the cancellation of the peace treaty" between Egypt and Israel.
The report was denied by the military and Vilnai said it was premature to talk about the treaty being annulled.
"The cancellation of the treaty is not today -- and I stress the word today -- a reality," he said.
But he acknowledged Israel fears a serious degradation in ties with Cairo once a new government comes to power.
"But when Egyptian government stabilises after a long electoral process, we expect it will seriously undermine the accord," he said."
Sectarian descriptions of protesters
Do you notice that Barhaini and Saudi protesters are consistently referred to in Western and Arab (Saudi and Qatari-funded) as Shi`ite protesters when protesters in Syria are not described in sectarian terms. What gives?
Extent and Objective of CIA Operations Under-reported
Comrade Ibrahim Al-Amin on CIA operations in Lebanon.
Bahrain royal commission
Angry Arab's chief Bahrain correspondent sent me additional comment:
"Continuation:
- no immediate reinstatement of workers and students
- no democratic "transition"
Three interesting points in Bassiounis speech:
- no evidence of iranian involvement
- no evidence that Penninsula shield (I.e. Saudi) committed any offenses
- I believe he said that opposition should have accepted governments offer of dialogue. (I am sick and tired of this narrative. They did have a dialogue with CP)
I did not watch the speech. Everything I wrote to you is based on live tweets I was reading. So I will need to wait for original report (which isn't available yet) to confirm.
I will admit to you: Bassiounis speech was better than I expected since he did admit that most of the violations took place. I see the speech as a win for the royal family (since they were not held accountable) but a lose for many of their supporters who continue to deny that the violations took place.
Oh one funny thing the information affairs authority was tweeting the speech - except that they were tweeting the opposite of what he said in many instances.
Meanwhile in the background - there are demonstrations everywhere in the villages. Security forces responded aggressively as usual. One protestor got killed already.
Also a lot of tire burning by protestors. Situation is definitely not stable. Protests continue. Violations continue."
"Continuation:
- no immediate reinstatement of workers and students
- no democratic "transition"
Three interesting points in Bassiounis speech:
- no evidence of iranian involvement
- no evidence that Penninsula shield (I.e. Saudi) committed any offenses
- I believe he said that opposition should have accepted governments offer of dialogue. (I am sick and tired of this narrative. They did have a dialogue with CP)
I did not watch the speech. Everything I wrote to you is based on live tweets I was reading. So I will need to wait for original report (which isn't available yet) to confirm.
I will admit to you: Bassiounis speech was better than I expected since he did admit that most of the violations took place. I see the speech as a win for the royal family (since they were not held accountable) but a lose for many of their supporters who continue to deny that the violations took place.
Oh one funny thing the information affairs authority was tweeting the speech - except that they were tweeting the opposite of what he said in many instances.
Meanwhile in the background - there are demonstrations everywhere in the villages. Security forces responded aggressively as usual. One protestor got killed already.
Also a lot of tire burning by protestors. Situation is definitely not stable. Protests continue. Violations continue."
Arab liberals heart dictators
"The threat of electoral defeat has even made some liberals sympathetic to the military’s attempt to dominate the constitution-writing process."
What Bassioni did not say about Bahrain
Angry Arab chief Bahrain correspondent sent me this: "Since you will be soon hearing what Bassiouni did say in his speech I will tell
you what he didn't say:
- he did not call for an immediate prisoner release and the dropping of all charges
- he did not hold any higher level officials (let alone King, Prime Minister, Khalid Bin Ahmed and Khalifa Bin Ahmed) responsible for any of the violations
- no mention of a systemic state policy to crush the demonstrations
- no mention of the most issue the military occupying the hospital
The King gave a speech after. Speech was pre-written. Again I will tell you what he did not say:
- immediate release of prisoners and the dropping of all charges".
- he did not call for an immediate prisoner release and the dropping of all charges
- he did not hold any higher level officials (let alone King, Prime Minister, Khalid Bin Ahmed and Khalifa Bin Ahmed) responsible for any of the violations
- no mention of a systemic state policy to crush the demonstrations
- no mention of the most issue the military occupying the hospital
The King gave a speech after. Speech was pre-written. Again I will tell you what he did not say:
- immediate release of prisoners and the dropping of all charges".
Naguib Sawires in New York City
A source in attendance sent me this: "Naguibb
Sawires spoke two days ago in New York at a gala event raising money for his
Ahrar party. He told his audience mostly in Arabic how the
demonstrators and the strikes have destroyed the Egyptian economy and how
al-Jazeera is the party that instigated Egyptians to attack the Israeli embassy
and that this was not a spontaneous event, and on and on, to the cheers of
Egyptian American businessmen and women!"
Arabs and Arab uprisings
Aghyan (a Syrian) sent me this unscientific survey of Arabs and Arab uprisings: "Not a scientific survey, but judging by the reactions of my friends on
FB/twitter it is interesting how they react to their revolutions:
Syrians were very engaged with Egypt and showed tremendous solidarity, and
now that the revolution was restarted they are back with the Egyptian
people. Egyptians were indifferent over the past 8 months to Syria, they only seem
to care about Egypt in Jan and now. Palestinians are more engaged with Egypt than they are with Syria but they
care about both. Lebanese don't care about anything accept the party life of Beirut and the
ranking system. Syrians overall are more passionate about Palestine and other Arab
revolutions and seem to have a stronger pan Arab identity in general."
Personally, I think that Lebanese do care about exploiting the situation to their own ends. I would say that Arabs were unanimous in supporting Tunisian and Egyptian uprising. Yes, Egypt generates the most interest. Syria (for many reasons that cane be reduced here) does not generate that kind of Arab support. Bahrain was killed in the press so Arabs did not see much of it. This should make for an interesting article.
Zionist spitting
"The group took the step following a report in Haaretz about two weeks ago describing the practice of some ultra-Orthodox Jewish young people of spitting when passing church clergy on the street."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
