Archive | August 6th, 2011

Breivik’s “2083″–The Mass Murderer’s Manifesto


By Israel Shamir

August 04, 2011 “Information Clearing House” — After the tears have dried and the cries of outrage fallen silent, we may begin to recognise that the cinematic qualities of the Utoya Massacre were drawn from trashy horror flicks. It is a recurring theme within the Friday the 13th Screams at Elm Street genre that a serial killer must stalk a peaceful summer camp and murder innocent youths. Friday the 22nd’s killer effectively brought the celluloid violence to life, further crystallizing the phenomenon of Man’s nightmares intruding onto reality. This trend towards violence began innocently enough with grim dime novels and gore spattered cinema, but it then began to deaden the minds of our children with “first-person shooter” video games of increasing realism. Nowadays those same children have grown into soldiers directing unmanned drone attacks upon far-away lands, and at least one of them has visited a nightmare upon this peaceful island summer camp.

Shooting people who can’t shoot back is a vile act, the mark of a mass murderer, a paid executioner, or a NATO soldier. For two hours the killer professionally, confidently, and coolly stalked the unarmed youths, executing them one by one in absolute safety; for one hundred days the killer’s ex-classmates, now in NATO Air Force, professionally, confidently, and coolly stalked unarmed Libyans from the absolute safety of distant compounds. Breivik hated Muslims, hated Socialists, no doubt he hated Ghadafi, a Muslim Socialist; but better than a thousand Ghadafi-dispatched terrorists his deed should remind the people of Europe that wars abroad will bring war home, too. There are too many licences to kill being produced.

Why did he do it? We can answer the question: the massacre was essentially a publicity stunt to attract worldwide attention to the killer’s magnum opus, a 1500-page compendium entitled “2083”. Breivik’s screed is no great work of the    human spirit; it is rather a copy-paste hodgepodge of Neocon ravings against Islam and Communism. In any case it does merit a look, if only because so many people were killed in order to make us read it. If this Breivik was a Herostratus, let us see why he burned down the temples of so many lives. Moreover, we must pinpoint where he went wrong.

2083 reveals that a new, vicious strain of political virus has emerged from the genetic engineering labs within the think tanks of the Neocons. The Masters of Discourse have long referred to traditional conservatives as “Nazis” because they oppose unrestricted immigration. They have made much hay of the fact that Nazis once considered Jews to be corrupt, once opposed the weaknesses of homosexuality, and once admired the  spirituality of  Muslims. The bad guy was supposed to be racist, love Adolf Hitler, hate Jews and gays. He did not have to hate  Commies because Communism was a similar totalitarian ideology according to Karl Popper and George Bush. The new strain passed through these filters.

The long labours of ideologists within the Neocon movement have borne fruit, and now it is the Jews who are considered to be above suspicion, the homosexuals who are considered strong, and conservative Muslims who are held to be alien to the new conservatism. Today we are witnessing the rapid spread of many well-financed political parties and activist groups that connect far-right ideas with sympathy to Jews, tolerance of gays, and a rabid hate of Islam. The writer of 2083, too, is pro-Jew (so long as they are free of “multicultural taint and pass his muster as right-wing Zionists), pro-gay, violently anti-Muslim and anti-Communist. His nearest analogue is Pim Fortuyn, the assassinated Dutch far-right Judeophile and gay politician. Breivik marched with the English Defence League (EDL), a British group set apart by its strongly pro-Jewish, anti-Muslim militancy.

Breivik’s 2083 is heavily influenced by far-right Neocon writing. As is often the case with copy-paste compilations, it is difficult to assign an accurate lineage to the conglomeration of words and those of compiled authors. However, if 2083 is ever published, the copyrights of David Horowitz and Bat Yeor, Daniel Pipes and Andrew Bostom should be given pride of place.  These are the writers who inspired Breivik to commit mass murder.

Gilad Atzmon reports that just a few hours before the attack Joseph Klein published an article  in Horowitz’s Frontpage entitled “The Quislings of Norway”  with additional incitement to murder. Klein wrote: “The infamous Norwegian Vidkun Quisling, who assisted Nazi Germany as it conquered his own country, must be applauding in his grave… Norway is effectively under the occupation of anti-Semitic leftists and radical Muslims, and appears willing to help enable the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel.”

These are fighting words, and Breitvik heeded them as he loaded his guns. The content of 2083 reflects his admiration of his Neocon sources. Quotes from David Horowitz’s Frontpage articles contaminate hundreds of pages with his vitriol. Bernard Lewis has his own place of honour. The notorious Bat Yeor, an Egyptian Jewish woman living in Switzerland who coined the term “Eurabia” (an alleged conspiracy to subjugate Europe to Arabs) and did much to promote and grew rich off the fear of Islam, corresponded with the killer. She “kindly” advised him and sent him her unpublished texts. She is the only person named in his Declaration of European Independence, and her advice the newly independent Europeans should follow, according to Breivik. Bat Yeor provided “inestimable service” to his project, and is quoted extensively throughout.

Robert Spencer, a sidekick of Jihad Watch’s Horowitz, is another great love of the killer, and so is American Zionist Andrew Bostom, self-proclaimed expert on “Islamic anti-Semitism”. Daniel Pipes is presented with his thesis that “The Palestinian phenomenon was created with the intention to justify Jihad.” Serge Trifkovic, an anti-Muslim Serb, Melanie Phillips, the British far-right Zionist, and Stephen Schwartz are all quoted, along with numerous other activists and scholars who earn their bread by demonizing Islam.

Politically, the killer’s sympathies lie squarely with the United States and Israel: “The creators of Eurabia have conducted a successful propaganda campaign against these two countries in the European media. This fabrication was made easier by pre-existing currents of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism in parts of Europe.” Economically, he likes Milton Friedman and Hayek; he would get rid of taxes and the welfare state.

Breivik hates the Palestinian people, and rails against the “Palestinian terrorist jihad”.  Like every good Zionist he brings up the Mufti and the Holocaust whenever possible: “Muhammad Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Arab nationalist leader, a leading force behind the establishment of the Arab League and a spiritual father of the PLO, was a close collaborator with Nazi Germany and personally met with Adolf Hitler. In a radio broadcast from Berlin he called upon Muslims to kill Jews wherever they could find them… he had visited incognito the gas chambers of Auschwitz.” Among the first things the newly independent Europeans should do, Breivik declares, is to stop all support of the Palestinians. In 2083 he calls on his fellow Templars to   “Assist Israel in deporting all Muslim Syrians (also referred to as ‘Palestinians’) from the Gaza strip, the West bank and Jerusalem. These territories will be included in Israel. However, Jerusalem will come under joint Christian-Jewish administration. Demolish the abomination known as the Al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple of Salomon – the Third Temple as described in the Book of Ezekiel, chapters 40-42. The Third Temple will become a place of worship for both Jews and Christians. The Dome of the Rock is regarded as occupying the actual space where the Temple once stood.”

For Breivik, as for all his Jewish teachers, Adolf Hitler represents ultimate evil. For this reason, he recommends that his readers avoid historically ominous words like “race”.  2083 is largely an attempt to categorize the other reasons to hate Muslims besides “race”. In the end, he did demonstrate to the world that he is not racist: he killed with an even hand, blue-eyed Norwegians as easily as brown-eyed guests. Breivik even hates David Duke – for being anti-Jewish. His hatred of Islam is not limited to the borders of Norway, or even of Europe – like all proper Neocons he hates Muslims wherever they are to be found.

Breivik spends many pages describing the evils committed by Turkey, including the massacres of the Armenians, Greeks and Kurds. There is a long chapter on the modern history of Lebanon, and the wars are presented as a struggle between Christians and Muslims. His favourite historical hero is Vlad the Impaler, the Romanian prince better known as Count Dracula.

His logic is as primitive as it is faulty: “If all ethnical groups and all cultures are equal, why is it black Africans, Afro-Caribbean blacks, Pakistanis, Indians, Chinese, and Eastern Europeans want to abandon their own lands en masse to live in the lands of the West?”

The most obvious explanation: “because the West has robbed them blind,” does not occur to Breivik.

He continues his fallacious dialog: “If we’re all truly equal, why does the rest of the world want to live the Western lifestyle, a lifestyle created in the main by white people? Just why exactly, do they want to be part of capitalism, run businesses, work for the white man’s industries, claim the white man’s welfare and buy and use goods created by the creativity and ingenuity of Western – white – people?”

The fallacies are opaque to Breivik. His Neocon informers have not equipped him to understand that the hated immigrants had once worked in their own successful industries in their own countries.

By no means can Breivik be characterised as a Christian fundamentalist; nor is he a Christian Zionist. His feelings towards Christianity are lukewarm at best, little more than a cultural solidarity. He hasn’t decided whether to call himself Christian. He is still “struggling with this myself. Some of the criticism of Christianity…is legitimate.” Like many Jewish activists, he approves of “the Second Vatican Council from the 1960s …for reaching out to Jews”, an interpretation that at one time was universally resisted by conservatives everywhere.

Breivik’s theological liberalism, however, evaporates when he considers Islam. Though his arguments could be applied to immigration policies around the world, he will only speak out against Muslim immigrants. He does not call upon his country to stop tormenting the Muslim states even though this is the main reason for Muslim immigration. He cannot even consider the connection.

In any case, today, a Norwegian does not have to shoot his fellow citizens in order to express disagreement with immigration: this has become the mainstream attitude.

Immigration into Norway has slowed to a trickle. In a wild swing away from its own liberal policies, the government of Norway – like many West European governments – has changed the rules to make immigration almost impossible. In a famous case, a young girl from the Caucasus lived for some ten years in Norway, completed her university studies, wrote a novel in Norwegian – and ended up being deported as an illegal alien.

The Friday 22 Massacre Part Two. Breivik Sees Red

Breivik hated Reds even more than Muslims. The Pakis should be deported, but the Commies. Shoot them as traitors, he wrote in his 2083. He fumed against communism like Hitler in Mein Kampf, but Hitler had better reasons. Hitler competed against the Communists for the hearts of German workers, and Hitler competed against the softies within the national-socialist movement in Germany, who (notably the brothers Strasser) were prepared to deal with communists.

A long time has passed since then. Communism won in the titanic struggle of 1945, but suffered a huge setback in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Consequently, anticommunism has lost its meaning since at least 1991, but probably even earlier. Today, it could possibly mobilise a few old-timers in Washington DC, but maybe not even them.

It is with great astonishment we witnesses of Communism’s defeat read in 2083 that Communism was victorious:

“The US but especially W. Europe lost the Cold War due to the fact that we didn’t persecute the Marxists after WW2. If we had executed each and every Marxist and banned Marxist doctrines (not only the economical aspects but the cultural as well – internationalism, extreme feminism, extreme egalitarianism, anti-elitism, anti-nationalism) we would not be in the current situation. Instead, our traitorous and weak minded post-WW2 leaders allowed the Marxists to gradually infiltrate many aspects of society after WW2, especially our universities and the media (see the beginning of book 1 for a complete overview of how this happened). The first ML pioneers (Marxist-Leninists) were allowed to indoctrinate the ’68 generation, those who run things today.”

Breivik arrives at the unexpected conclusion that both the EU and the US are, in our present age, “socialist” or even “communist” states, “EUSSR and USSR” organised in accordance with Marx’s teachings. I did not know that Karl Marx envisaged a society with hundreds of billionaires and millions of paupers. One would have to be mad to describe the contemporary US and EU as “communist dictatorships” – these societies are extremely inegalitarian — workers are on the bottom, while the super-wealthy have an ostentatious lifestyle unheard of even in the Medici’s Florence.

The reason for this unexpected conclusion is that Breivik intentionally confuses Marxism-Leninism as the ruling ideology of the Soviet Union and Maoist China, with the neo-Marxist western ideology of Fromm and Adorno, Marcuse and Lukacs. With all due respect, the Cold War was NOT a war with them, but a war against the USSR and its allies, a war with its geopolitical as well as ideological components. Western neo-Marxists were rather the allies of the capitalist West in that war, and their contribution to the fall of the Eastern citadel of Communism was enormous, as they successfully undermined the Russian elites’ belief in their own ideology.

Though Breivik quarrels with the Western Marxists, he finds it convenient to connect them with the Gulag and with mass murders in the USSR. This is dishonest: the Western neo-Marxists were against Stalin, and they called their Eastern brethren “Stalinists”, at least since Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin in 1956.

Nowadays President Medvedev is talking again about de-Stalinisation; probably this talk will prevent his re-election. The people of Russia have differing views about Stalin, but the majority were and are against de-Stalinisation, for to them it symbolises the breakdown of the national masculine heroic paradigm.

Breivik accuses the Communists of supporting “extreme feminism”. This is odd. Joseph Stalin was the ultimate symbol of masculinity: the great Yugoslav director Dushan Makkaveev depicted him in his Mysteries of the Organism in priapic form. De-Stalinisation can be viewed as an attempt to unman the Father-figure of the Communist world. Again, Breivik’s ridiculous claim can be explained by his desire to gather all the Reds into one big heap: from grim NKVD commissars to California sociologists to the Norwegian teenagers he shot. He learned this nasty trick from his Neocon teachers: they paint every nationalist by the same brush as Adolf Hitler.

But not every traditionalist and nationalist is a Breivik or a Hitler; the Communists take differing positions on tradition, with Eastern Stalinists being quite conservative, traditional and mildly nationalist, while Western neo-Marxists rejected the bourgeois nationalism which caused two world wars.

Breivik stresses the Communist origins of the Frankfurt school’s founders, of Theodor Adorno and Georg Lukács – but the neocons, too, were red-diaper babies or even active Trots before switching sides. Gramsci indeed dreamed of cultural hegemony as the means of arriving at socialism. He thought that a new “Communist man” might be created before any political revolution. However, Gramsci was mistaken. This theory of Gramsci was used to preach a reformist, non-revolutionary way, avoiding a violent takeover of banks and factories. The idea was played up by the Euro-Communists and, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, disappeared with the Euro-Communist parties.

Lenin was right, and Gramsci was wrong: you have to take away from the capitalists both their chequebooks and their factories, their weapons and their newspapers, their parliament and their government, otherwise they will turn every agenda of yours to their benefit. The Frankfurt school and other Western neo-Marxists stood by the West in the Cold War.

The Western neo-Marxists behaved like the proverbial man who searched for a lost coin under the lamppost. Though he knew he had lost the coin elsewhere, there was more light under the lamppost. They did not know how to interact with workers, and so preferred to work with minorities, students, feminists. It was easier, but led nowhere, as we now see. The workers of Spain and Greece rose up last month, but the neo-Marxists were nowhere to be found. They did not lead this real popular revolt, as they were only used to their toy revolutions in the field of semantics.

The neo-Marxists gave up on revolution, gave up on socialism, gave up on the workers, and instead preferred to work “so no future Holocaust would be possible”. Breivik just intones that what these men did IS communism. Actually, many texts in 2083 are old anti-Jewish screeds with find/replace Jews by Marxists.

Regretfully Breivik was wrong: the communists did not win. We did not move even one step closer to communism by promoting gay marriages and multiculturalism. Fighting against Christianity and family does not help, either. All these steps were appropriated and used by Capital and against workers.

The proof that Breivik speaks nonsense (even in his own terms) can be found in his 2083, where he rates European states according to their acceptance of what he calls “cultural Marxism”. Not surprisingly, Russia and other countries of the Communist block are the freest from this dogma, while Germany, Sweden and Norway are the most subservient. Indeed, destructive western neo-Marxist theories were never popular in the East, where capitalism was dismantled in the real sense and there was no need for a make-believe pseudo-communist ideology to paper over a capitalist economy.

As for the West, 1968 was not, as Breivik says, V-day for Marxism, but the beginning of a turn towards the Iron Heel. Our freedoms peaked just after the long-gone year of 1968. 1968 was a turning point in America. In 1968, the richest Americans contributed 90% per cent of their income to the state, while now they pay less than 30 per cent (never mind that they do not pay even that much by cleverly exploiting tax shelters, exempt funds and other tricks). It was in 1968 that the American worker’s minimum pay peaked in real terms. Looking back, 1968 was the moment in history when mankind was nearest to the stars.

As children of the defeated ’68 revolution, we were free to love, smoke, think and act. We could travel and fly without being stripped at the airport, and our booze was not confiscated. We could make love and smoke in cafés. Since then, it has been downhill all the way: smoking has been banned, free thought has been incarcerated by Political Correctness, and political action has been reduced to joining a Facebook group.

In the US, as Noam Chomsky has instructed me, the U-turn coincided with the 1968 teachers’ strike in New York which reminded the Jews that their narrow interests are not necessarily best served by progressive and revolutionary tactics.

Support of dubious gender politics and retreat from the class struggle changed the Left. While the Left had always pushed for equality between the sexes, this equality leaned rather towards the masculine pole: whether it was a worker building the barricade, sailors storming the Winter Palace, cigar-smoking barbudos of Castro, they were all manly symbols of the Left. During the epic confrontation of the first half of 20th century, the Red Guards were not more feminine than the Stormtroopers, and Ernst Thaelmann was not less masculine than Ernst Roehm.

The present misbalance of male/female factors in the developed world was caused by technological developments (man’s physical strength is less needed), by ideological shift and by capitalists’ desire to maximise profit by employing women. As a result, men are frustrated. Their old traditional role of providers is over; their jobs went away to China, fighting is done by drones. Breivik’s massacre bears the mark of a frustrated and marginalized Norwegian man.

Breivik felt his manhood threatened by “television, where nearly every major offering has a female ‘power figure’ and the plots and characters emphasize the inferiority of the male and superiority of the female… by government-mandated employment preferences and practices that benefit women and use ‘sexual harassment’ charges to keep men in line, [by] colleges where women’s gender studies proliferate and ‘affirmative action’ is applied in admissions and employment.”

Yes, the killer is a psychotic man whose vision is hardly adequate, but his point should be considered. Even his hatred towards Muslim immigrants could be traced to the threat to his manhood presented by virile, unencumbered-by-fear-of-harassment-charges Southerners successfully competing for the charms of the Nordic girls. This massacre and its possible follow-ups might well have been averted if this European man did not feel his manhood threatened in so many ways.

Israel Shamir, a leading Russian Israeli writer, is a champion of the “One Man, One Vote, One State” solution seeking to unite Palestine & Israel in one democratic state. Shamir’s work and that of his contributors speaks to the aspirations of both the Israelis and the Palestinians seeking an end to the bloodshed, true democracy and lasting peace.

Posted in CampaignsComments Off on Breivik’s “2083″–The Mass Murderer’s Manifesto

Moscow warns against interference in Syrian conflict


Moscow warns against interference in Syrian conflict

The Russian Foreign Ministry has warned against outside interference in the Syrian conflict, saying the country’s citizens should solve their problems themselves.

“The settlement in this country should be carried out by the Syrians themselves without outside interference and should be based on an all-Syria dialogue, which is the only way to resolve the conflict,” the ministry said in a statement.

Moscow’s stance was voiced after French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said earlier on Thursday that the UN Security Council may take a tougher stance on Syria if the ruling regime fails to halt its deadly crackdown on protesters.

Juppe’s comments came as Syrian troops and tanks continued their assault on the city of Hama, a center of opposition protest, and just hours after the Security Council adopted a statement condemning the “widespread violations of human rights and the use of force against civilians by the Syrian authorities.”

Speaking to reporters in Paris, Juppe hailed the international body’s condemnation as a “turning point” but warned that the Council may “go further in its decisions” if nothing has changed in a week’s time, when it will meet to “reexamine the situation.”

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said the Security Council statement represented “the clear message of the international community” to President Bashar al-Assad.

Residents and rights campaigners say at least 140 people have been killed in the unrest in Hama. More than 1,600 civilians are believed to have been killed since protests began in March.

Meanwhile, tens of thousands of people rallied in several Syrian cities late on Wednesday.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Moscow warns against interference in Syrian conflict

IsraHell’s Latest Battle Against Ken O’Keefe


Tim King

One of the human race’s leading activists addresses baseless allegations that thwarted an Overland Convoy to Gaza.

Ken O'Keefe in Gaza

Ken O’Keefe in Gaza

(SALEM, Ore.) – Nobody ever said approaching life honestly or fairly would result in an easy game, and our writer Ken O’Keefe, one of the the world’s most well known activists for Gaza, is constantly fighting snakes. Regardless, ‘undeterred’ still addresses this champion for human beings who fights the most crucial battles against the very worst odds.

Ken speaking at KSU

Ken has been taken advantage of by people who obviously always planned to subvert his latest overland convoy for Gaza. (Convoy of trucks loaded with food and supplies for the people of Gaza- to be driven all the way from London). He has a small number of enemies who turned on him in the most devastating way, and their actions can be compared to the Six Day War itself; they struck when nobody was looking or expecting it, and like that conflict, they scored a decisive victory for Israel’s apartheid government.

Their actions thwart and seek to destroy the movement to see Palestine liberated, and they work for Israel. The two primary characters in this story are Catherine Myles, hired as Ken’s assistant, and Saeb Shaath is the second person. Shaath didn’t even show his face as Ken explains below, until after the hostile takeover of his humanitarian project to aid Gaza.

Background on Gaza

Gaza is a small pocket of land surrounded on three sides by Israel, and flanked by the Mediterranean Sea on its western side. It is part of Palestine, the historical land under British control at the time that Israel claimed its statehood in 1948.

Control has moved around over the years; today the elected government in Gaza is Hamas, though the other remaining parts of Palestine; West Bank and the Golan Heights, are under the control of the Palestinian Authority and Israel. Hamas has fought a battle against Israel off and on, though Israel has vastly superior military capability and weaponry, to the point that there is no competition at all.

Hamas at one time was behind suicide bombs, but they officially ended the practice. The other thing they are noted for frequently is the firing of unguided rockets into Israel. These have killed 28 Israeli citizens over the years. Israel by comparison, targets and attacks Gaza every single day. In ‘Operation Cast Lead’ that took place over the winter of 2008 and 2009, they killed more than 1400 people, mostly civilians with over 400 children among them, and left thousands upon thousands permanently wounded physically and psychologically.

Ken O’Keefe in picture and sound

You can see Ken’s full report here: Ken O’Keefe – On Being a World Citizen

You can see Ken’s full report here: Time to add Palestine to the ‘No-Fly Zone’

The Ugly Details of Israel’s Gaza Siege & Attack Against the Mavi Marmara

See the full report: RTV Interviews Ken O’Keefe About Gaza Flotilla Report

Israel uses jet fighters and drones to drop bombs right on family homes, on medical facilities, and on the tunnels that are Gaza’s only alternate connection to Egypt. Civilian targets are almost the only results seen, and as Ken demonstrated through our reports in Gaza, what Israel does, and what is says it does, are almost always dramatically different.

Shaath is apparently associated with Middle east online, that carries plenty of news about Israel and the rest of the region. In an interview I just watched on YouTube, he talks casually about how he “went to Gaza two weeks ago” and I have to wonder how a Palestinian who speaks out against Israel on TV, can just go to the closed area of Gaza any time he wants to.

The BBC’s Jane Corbin has the same unique ability to go to Gaza when she wants to.

Corbin’s husband works for Israel and is a staunch ally, and her bias toward Israel stands out like a sore thumb in her reporting, so we reason that must by why she can enter Gaza at will, while other people, Gaza residents and activists; Ken O’Keefe included, sometimes have a very difficult of a time getting in or out. It is interesting that Mr. Shaath apparently can also cross the border at will like Ms. Corbin.

Shaath has also appeared on Press TV and presents himself as a strong advocate for Palestine. How and why he became involved in an attack on Ken is not known, since he wasn’t in the picture until the takeover was underway. When you listen to Shaath talk, he can’t say ‘American’ – he can only say ‘American Imperialists’ and while that is fine; I can hear Ken saying the same words… it occurs to me that he could be against Ken because of the simple fact that he is American by birth.

Ken is actually a citizen of Ireland today and Palestine, where he was issued a Palestinian passport after being part of the first Freedom Flotilla to reach Gaza in over 40 years, in 2008. Ken has been there every step of the way in regard to the current effort to free Gaza.

Another steadfast person in the movement to free Palestine in Ireland, Anna O’Leary, like myself and so many others, is puzzled by the actions of Shaath.

She wrote:

“Saeb, why if you are a good human being did you not start a convoy….you and Catherine Myles could have organised a convoy…………you are both capable operators. You could have done what others did and joined the Flotilla. Oh My God man you have done such harm to Palestine…and you a Palestinian. You have wounded Palestine as surely as if you were an Israeli IDF soldier. You make me cry for the fact that you stopped a much needed aid convoy. We all know how they desperately need our convoy.

“YOU, a Palestinian, have STOPPED THE CONVOY”.

As for the woman Cathy Myles… she is the one who came to Ken in good faith and professed to be a dedicated and faithful person working to help him reach his goals. She carefully planned a takeover and smear campaign to take place simultaneously. It is the second smear campaign against Ken in the last year. People have tried desperately to bring him down by criticizing his resistance of Israeli soldiers on the Mavi Marmara and making statements that are untrue.

Ken is a diehard activist who has committed his life to Palestine. It is no secret. He has risked his life time and again and our viewers have seen Ken standing in Gaza among thousands, as bullets fly by and Ken doesn’t duck. We have in fact published video at least twice where the viewer sees Ken and people from Gaza and other activists directly fired at by Israeli Defence Forces (IDF).

He’s a tough as nails ex-Marine but he loves people with so much intensity that you feel it in your gut when he talks about what he has seen in his life fighting corruption and crimes against humanity, particularly for the people of Gaza. Here is the thing though; people like Ken are trusting, that is their nature. It carries a devastating potential but the opposite is becoming jaded and cynical, which does no one any good. Ken is a human but he is also a Timex among men and the most devastating scoundrels in the world aren’t going to stop him, and I am among those here to lay it out and set the record straight on his behalf. I sincerely hope that collectively, we never forget what the real motives of Myles and Shaath have to be, because they hurt the people of Gaza more than anyone.

More Background on Ken O’Keefe

Long before Ken was working for the people of Gaza, this former U.S. Marine who fought in the first Gulf War before becoming an activist for peace, helped the people of Iraq with his human shield operation that saw many sites in Iraq escape US bombs in the early part of the war, in 2003.

Vital aspects of Iraq’s infrastructure were spared the hail of bombs because Ken and other American and European people were standing in front of power facilities and they made their presence known. The US and UK didn’t want Caucasian blood flowing through the alleys as that would be hard to explain. This dynamic, where white people can get press attention from groups like The BBC, when Middle eastern people would not, has been a big part of what makes Ken so effective. If there were a lot more people with his level of understanding and application, his uniqueness would not exist, but it does.

In truth his personality and drive are so effective that he becomes a threat to people who also claim to care about Palestinians and their associated Human Rights, yet give not a hundredth of what Ken has already given. The perceived threat is never against the individuals in a real way, it is against their egos. A natural leader like Ken easily clashes with others who are not leaders but do seek to be controllers. Ken O’Keefe is proven, tried and tested, so they can all give this little effort up. In fact they’ve cried wolf one time too many.

From the Mavi Marmara incident, where Ken and other unarmed activists were attacked by the IDF aboard their Turkish ship in international waters with 9 killed and scores injured, to the debacle in Greece that saw a ship’s captain thwart a mission to Gaza by ripping away from a dock without having the ropes untied (major damage), that ultimately, inadvertently allowed Ken to reach Gaza, where he stayed for 6 months, to this current convoy that has been literally seized and stolen by Myles and Shaath, Ken is non-stop for Gaza with no exceptions.

While there he revealed and exposed damage from Israeli attacks with video that we were able to compare to IDF press releases, underscoring the absurdity of Israel’s lies in the political arena. He restored faith to the Samouni family which is one of Gaza’s hardest hit, showing in detail the pain they have experienced strictly as a result of Israel’s war crimes.

While people try to bring Ken O’Keefe down by casting horrible lies about his character about, it is most important to note how Myles and her partner in crime, (literally) Saeb Shaath, placed human lives in danger in Gaza in order to damage Ken’s character and ambitions.

They did this intentionally, they did it to hurt Ken in ways that go beyond their silly easily disproved assault on his character. The only benefactor is Israel, this can not be said enough times, and it is a simple logical conclusion with no other possible answers.

Regardless of who they claim to be, or who they once may have been, they are most clearly the deceptive face of the enemy and when I say that, I mean it in the broader sense, because humanity’s cause is a single minded one.

Ken is a world citizen, it is unfortunate that people on this planet have such terrible motives and character that they would undermine his genuine efforts to aid the helpless. The video fromPress TV on the left, is an extensive interview with Ken O’Keefe recorded just one day ago in London.

Introduced and always regarded by this respected news agency as a sincere activist for Palestine, the program proves that while in monetary terms the Myles/Shaath escapade is damaging, in to Ken’s credibility, his years and years of steadfast devotion to humanity stand like the Rick of Gibraltar.

All the while as Ken worked in Gaza, Hamas watched and monitored what he did, and never interfered with his activism that benefited their own families and loved ones. Hamas well knows who Ken is and what he does and where he went and who he saw.

There are no questions from anyone in Gaza, all of the problems Ken is dealing with are coming directly from Israel via Myles and Shaath and their network, and while they won’t admit it, it is still the case.

Israel has deep pockets, endless resources and the willingness to kill or hurt anyone they believe they need to, on whatever nation’s soil they choose. Ken’s status as a celebrity makes their thoughts on terminating him become very bad ideas, and that is why these people working to subvert Ken are trying to take him out with slander and libelous claims, and we are here to put a stop to it and we can back it all up.

Ken O’Keefe in picture and sound

See Ken’s full report: Samouni Family Olive Tree Orchard in Gaza

New Song ‘History’ by Agron Belica Dedicated to Gaza Activist Ken O’Keefe

Ken in Gaza: Israel Bombs Gaza’s 3rd Largest Medical Storage Supply Building

Ken reports from Gaza: A Mother’s Loss – Operation Cast Lead Mass-Murder

Ken in Gaza: Israel Fires on Unarmed Demonstrators in Gaza- Third Intifada

Ken in Gaza: Report from Gaza: Two Years After Operation Cast Lead

Again, anyone so sincere and so complete in dedication to humanity, is naturally the enemy of others. Israel has apartheid laws and they created a Palestinian Diaspora that has ruined the lives of millions for more than six decades now. In Gaza alone there are more than 800,000 children being forced by Israel to live in the worst of conditions.

Ken has dedicated his life trying to help them, and his former assistant Cathy Myles and her cohort Saeb Shaath are here to hurt the children of Gaza and their tools are treachery and deceit and their master is Israel. Anyone familiar with knows that we are the only American news agency that carries unfiltered stories from Palestine, period. We have carried thousands of stories relating to Middle east news, much of it delivered from our own teams on the ground.

There are many blogs and there are specialized news sites that cater to Veterans, Middle eastern people, Muslim people, etc., that carry these stories… but we are the news that many people know and count on every day for an endless variety of subjects and we work tirelessly to deliver the truth.

There is no shortage of advocacy for Ken. One of the people who recently came on the scene and began hurling baseless insults toward Ken is named Jo Ann Westcott. It isn’t even clear if this is a real person, or a person using the name to slander Ken, but that is the result. Facebook does not help very much in my book, it is a breeding ground for contemptuous, anonymous character slayers and they don’t have to answer for crimes they commit with a proxy IP and a fake name.

So many people are supportive of Ken, they could not be counted, though the people against him, at least the primary ones, can be counted with one hand.

Huriya Farwa:

“WOW I’ve been looking through Jo Anns facebook and all her accusations are baseless to even me who has no clue what the rift is about! They sound like Zionists trying to muscle in, will get people to report her profile so online bashing can stop from her InshAllah…”

Akashma Web Blogs:

“Ken brother, I’m with you. i m really sorry that all this is happening. Is any way that you make another trust team in UK, so the Sammouni project keep moving, and let them (Cathy and ??)for now, take those truck to Gaza. If they do not take them in due time then we start a legal campaign to recoup all the money?”

And lest we forget that Ken was very close to the late activist Vittorio ‘Vik’ Arrigoni who was tragically killed in Gaza and it was Ken who identified his body. These rats in London destroying Ken are disgusting, they disrespect not just Ken, but Vik and Rachel Corrie and Tom Hurndall, all activists killed while working as activists in Gaza, trying to protect the people from Israel’s deadly bullets and bulldozers.

Ken is of their spirit, these people trying to hurt him are reduced scale human beings. They should be fined and jailed for their insubordinate actions and false sincerity used to steal equipment and destroy the mission to Gaza.

It is inconceivable that an activist with Ken O’Keefe’s background and motivations and love for the beleaguered Palestinian people would do anything that was not for them.

Therefore every single word that ever comes out of the mouth of Myles of Shaath negative toward Ken’s character, are fully untrue. They have been reached, they are working for Israel either directly or indirectly, though I can’t imagine the latter scenario being the case; they are not working for humanity, they are not honest human beings by their own admission, and they are outed. There is no room in the operation for people of this ilk.

This is from Ken, it is his response to the terrible slanderous remarks issued by Catherine Myles. I will not publish her remarks, nor will I publish reconstituted versions of them in our comment section.

From Ken O’Keefe:

There are many accusations in here, let me address them sequentially. 1) There is a reference to the visas, this is about our visa application to bring out four Samouni family members out to Europe and to lead the mission to Gaza, along with myself (this was always part of the plan). Catherine says effectively that I have lied to the Samouni’s and told them that we have the visas; this is the first lie. We have been told by the EU reps that the application will be rejected because it is “to political”. Those working on the application in Gaza thought I would say enough to this then, instead I had given direction to send the application which makes clear that the application is made so the Samouni family can tell their story to the European audience directly. I have every intention of doing this, if necessary I want to force the EU to reject the Samouni family’s right to share their story. After all, this is what the EU does, sleep with and stroke Israel on every level. But you never know, if pressure came to bear we might well have the Samouni’s with us as planned. Among the Samouni’s coming would be a truck driver and the head of the family (Mukhtar).

2) Next Catherine says I am banned in Gaza and Egypt, and that I knew this. Now I have called my contacts in Gaza, which includes Dr. Ghazi Hamad, Chairman of the Border Crossings Authority in the Gaza Strip, this is man the runs Rafah Crossing. I also called the former Deputy Foreign Minister and a couple of other well connected people, needless to say these comments by Catherine are lies as well. I am welcome in Gaza and although I was indeed blocked from leaving Gaza by Egypt, when I finally left they never told me I was banned, to the contrary I was allowed to stay in Cairo after leaving Gaza. When I did, nothing at all was said to me about being banned.

3) Lie number three is built on lie number two, that I was banned and unwelcome. Catherine goes further here to say that Hamas were protecting the reputation of herself, Cormac and Saeb by not revealing this. Saeb consequently was never officially a part of this convoy until shortly before he showed up as part of the hijack crew.

4) The next lie is hideous and dangerous, “KOK (Ken O’Keefe) was almost jailed twice in Gaza for trying to make young women go to his flat with him…” As a result of this lie Noor, the Director of the Samouni Project in Gaza, has quit her position. Yesterday she was crying and in fear for her life. She is in serious danger and I repeat, Saeb Shaath is also responsible for any harm that comes to her for this lie, a lie that is purely intended to discredit me and protect the hijacking agenda and its instigators. Noor is nothing but a pawn to be used, Saeb Shaath (by his silence and complicity) and Catherine Myles are simply ruthless for doing this, never mind the nastiness of trying to destroy my name with such a lie, but to risk the life of Noor while you are at it is beyond disgusting.

5) She says as well that I “committed other insane offences whilst he was there”, but she gives no details, leaving one who believes the first lies wondering just what other craziness I have been up to. This is slander/liable at its best.

6) She says I bullied and intimidated women. Of course this is supported by no facts, but she felt like throwing in a bit of female abuse while we are at it.

7) Next she says the “security forces hate KOK and have had him followed constantly.” Well I know for sure that I am not hated, to the contrary I have made real connections with many brothers on the ground in Gaza… although I did not train any commando units for Hamas (as Israel has said). As for them watching me all over Gaza, indeed they did, and that is why I am most welcome and respected, they know all that I have done there… and all I did was work very hard for the Palestinian cause and the mission that Ms. Myles and Saeb Shaath have hijacked.

8) Ms. Myles says anyone who wants to check these facts then please do call ministers in Hamas. Well I too encourage people to do this, but imagine very few of you actually have contact numbers, which is surely why she suggests you people call.

9) Next quote, keeping in mind everything she has said to this point is complete bullshit; “There is much we knew that we could not reveal at all. We were set tasks by the Mid East and we have done them. We have exposed this man and we will bring him down.” Right, so apparently the Ms. Myles acting as my PA thing was merely cover for the big job of exposing me. In other words she has been lying to me in every way for months. And so it goes, the real enemy of Palestine and the people of Gaza is none other than me, Ken O’Keefe. I have been the problem and the mission I founded, that was merely a ploy for my dastardly plans to subdue and abuse young woman. But thankfully the real heroes of Palestine have come, enter Saeb Shaath and his sidekick Ms. Catherine Myles.Gaza fret no more, all will be well, the new and improved Trade Not Aid Mission is coming! Co-leaders of the hijacked Trade Not Aid Mission, I sincerely hope that everyone who is learning the facts about this horrendous display of deception, fraud and theft is as repulsed as they should be. I encourage you to share this post and the facts surrounding it to such a degree that this hostile takeover becomes the signature of Saeb Shaath and Catherine Myles. If a pro bono attorney is found, liable charges will be filed. Just today in Bradford I had a fundraiser set up for Trade Not Aid, they cancelled due to this circus. Who loses? We all know the answer to that and the only way I know to right this awful mistake of mine is to expose and retain control so the mission can move forward in the way it was always intended to do. If enough of the people reading this get outraged then justice will be served and this mission will succeed.


If anyone wonders, all of us who work with Ken are 100%+ behind him and we expect this type of thing to happen, though we obviously hope this is the last one of this type or magnitude. I will leave this article with several more related quotes, they are coming from Facebook pages where a lot of energy is burned by people talking about crazy things like this.

Lisa Atwill:

“I want the money I donated returning a.s.a.p. I would never ever have donated anything to a cause Catherine Myles was associated with. Catherine Myles has blocked me and will not communicate with me on this matter”.

Ken O’Keefe:

“Ultimately I will have to eat humble pie and apologise to you and everyone else over having trusted Catherine to not only be my “PA”, but to do the accounting. In my defence I was in Gaza when she took this role and really needed support in the UK to make things happen, but my decision to bring her in was horrible. I am sorry Lisa”.

Lisa Atwill:

“It is not your fault you are not the thief Ken, you have no need to apologise to me. Cate will not acknowledge any communication or discuss this matter. I think that the minutes she has posted today are disgraceful and a clear indication as to the extent of how devious these criminals are”.

Majd F. El-Wahaidi:

“What The Hell . Unbelievable . I’ll share the ‘Truth’ Ken & I’ll delete those bastards from my friends list. Shame On Them. Stay Strong”.

Maryam Zahraa Hussain:

“Ken. You are Gaza. Anyone who says other wise is just weird. I’m still kind of confused, is she saying Hamas is protecting her and their trying to get you banned from Palestine? I wish I could help. I burst out into tears as I read this. Is Noor alright? I pray you are well. Inshallah, the truth shall be revealed to the world. Stay safe my brother”. ♥

Bonnie King:

“Infuriating! We are ALL insulted on behalf of our brother, Ken. We stand together- absolutely. She/they clearly do not know you. These ridiculous, baseless lies are beyond belief. How bizarre, and embarrassing for her gang of thieves. This will not end well for them, especially in the public eye. TJP”

David Evans:

“Shared, my Brother. As you know all too well, our enemies wear many masks. Those of us who know you will stay the course with you. I am sorry that with every waking minute you spend on this cause, you now need to contend with this evil. You’ve done SO much already for the good people in Gaza! And you will continue to so so much more for Gaza. We all know this”.

Final thoughts:

Again, what Ken O’Keefe needs is a real legal team to prosecute all of the slanderers. Catherine Myles is in the UK so this will be much, much easier, Ken believes, adding, “What is written here is not just slander for me, but reckless endangerment for some in Gaza. The Samouni family are also being hit directly with these lies, if this campaign succeeds, then the trust will be gone and I will step away. But this is out of my hands, what I need is legal help, real legal help and if a free lawyer cannot be found then I need a legal fund”.


Tim King: Editor and Writer Tim King is a former U.S. Marine with twenty years of experience on the west coast as a television news producer, photojournalist, reporter and assignment editor. In addition to his role as a war correspondent, this Los Angeles native serves as’s Executive News Editor.

Tim spent the winter of 2006/07 covering the war in Afghanistan, and he was in Iraq over the summer of 2008, reporting from the war while embedded with both the U.S. Army and the Marines. Tim holds awards for reporting, photography, writing and editing, including the Silver Spoke Award by the National Coalition of Motorcyclists (2011), Excellence in Journalism Award by the Oregon Confederation of Motorcycle Clubs (2010), Oregon AP Award for Spot News Photographer of the Year(2004), First-place Electronic Media Award in Spot News, Las Vegas, (1998), Oregon AP Cooperation Award (1991); and several others including the 2005 Red Cross Good Neighborhood Award for reporting. Tim has several years of experience in network affiliate news TV stations, having worked as a reporter and photographer at NBC, ABC and FOX stations in Arizona, Nevada and Oregon.

Tim was a member of the National Press Photographer’s Association for several years and is a current member of the Orange County Press Club. Serving the community in very real terms, is the nation’s only truly independent high traffic news Website. As News Editor, Tim among other things, is responsible for publishing the original content of 82 writers. He reminds viewers that emails are easily missed and urges those trying to reach him, to please send a second email if the first goes unanswered. You can write to Tim at this address:

Posted in CampaignsComments Off on IsraHell’s Latest Battle Against Ken O’Keefe

Chris Christie slams fearmongering over Sharia law


New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie defended his decision to nominate a Muslim judge to the state Superior Court against conservative critics who warned that the new judge will implement Sharia law. The notoriously blunt-spoken Christie calling their fears “crap” and “crazy.”

The appointee, Sohail Mohammed, is an American attorney who offered legal aid to New Jersey residents who were suspected after the 9/11 terrorist attacks but were later found innocent of any crimes.

Opponents of Mohammed’s nomination have issued warnings, with no evidence, that Christie’s nominee, if approved, would base his rulings on Islamic law. Christie was having none of it.

“Sharia law has nothing to do with this at all. It’s crazy. It’s crazy,” Christie said at a press conference Wednesday. “The guy’s an American citizen who has been an admitted lawyer to practice in the state of New Jersey, swearing an oath to uphold the laws of New Jersey, the constitution of the state of New Jersey, and the Constitution of the United States of America . . . .This Sharia law business is crap. It’s just crazy. And I’m tired of dealing with the crazies.”

You can watch the exchange after the jump:


Several Republican presidential candidates have warned of a Muslim plot to force American courts to rule by the religious code. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum recently called it “an existential threat” to the United States; former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty shut down a program in his state that would allow practicing Muslims to pay for mortgages without violating their religious teachings against borrowing with interest; businessman Herman Cain said he would require Muslims to take an extra loyalty oath to serve in his administration; and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called for a federal law to ban Sharia from U.S. courts.

Posted in USAComments Off on Chris Christie slams fearmongering over Sharia law

Nato’s war crimes in Libya



Resistance continues amidst overwhelming popular support for Gaddafi.

By the 100th day of the imperialist predatory war against Libya, the warmongering and fascistic Nato alliance had made 12,070 air sorties, of which 4,569 were strike sorties that hit 2,125 targets. According to Nato sources, the targets hit included 740 ammunition facilities, 420 tanks and other armoured vehicles, 370 military facilities/bases, and 255 sites or storage facilities, including for SAM (surface-to-air missiles) and radar systems. Since then, Nato has intensified its air campaign, causing further damage.

Killing civilians in the name of protecting them

Nato spokesmen maintain a discreet diplomatic silence about the civilian targets the forces of this criminal fraternity have been hitting, causing huge damage and resulting in the deaths and injuries of thousands of civilians, including women and children.

According to the Libyan Red Crescent Society, which can be relied upon to tell the truth a thousand times more than the lying spokesmen of imperialism, in the first 100 days of the war 6,121 civilians were killed or injured, of whom 668 men, 141 children and 260 women were killed, while 3,093 men, 641 children and 1,318 women were injured.

In other words, Nato’s allegedly humanitarian mission to ‘protect civilians’ killed 1,069 and injured another 5,052. Of the injured, 655 were seriously injured and are still in hospital receiving medical care, whereas 4,397 have been sent home to their families for outpatient care.

This is Nato’s shameful record in ‘protecting civilians’ in just the first 100 days of its ‘humanitarian’ bombing campaign. From day one of this barbarous war, Nato has been hitting private apartments, homes, schools, shops, factories, and warehouses storing flour, and is currently targeting Libya’s only fresh water supplies. It has repeatedly targeted the leader of Libya, Colonel Gaddafi, and his family.

On May Day, in a deliberate assassination attempt, Nato planes bombed a residential area of Tripoli, specifically aiming at the house of Gaddafi’s second youngest son, Saif al-Arab, whom the assassins believed the Libyan leader was visiting. As a matter of fact, Gaddafi and his wife had left just 37 minutes before the attack, which killed Saif al-Arab and three of the Colonel’s grandchildren – all babies.

Nato’s cynical response to this attempted assassination of Colonel Gaddafi was that it had only aimed at a ‘Command and Control’ centre. Since when have residential areas, even if they happen to have in them houses occupied by the leadership of a country or their relatives, become Command and Control centres?

Nato has bombed Bal al-Azizia, Muammar Gaddafi’s headquarters, several times, each time on the same pretext, ie, that it was trying to destroy a Libyan Command and Control centre. On 24 May, Nato made a highly concentrated raid, believed to have been led by British Typhoon and Tornado warplanes, causing 20 massive separate explosions in the area of central Tripoli where the residential compound of the Libyan leader is located. The raid damaged several houses as well as a nearby mosque, killing 19 Libyan civilians and injuring another 156, some of them seriously, according to Libya’s health ministry, the General People’s Committee for Health.

Many of the strikes on Tripoli are clearly aimed at decapitating the Libyan regime and terrorising Tripoli’s citizens, who are overwhelmingly opposed to Nato’s predatory war and are backing the Libyan leader with all the strength and determination at their command.

The Voice of Russia has reported that Ghadames, an old town in Libya also known as ‘the pearl of the desert’, has been under bomb shelling, and now Leptis Magna, a prominent city of the Roman empire, is also in danger. Both Ghadames and Leptis Magna are Unesco world heritage sites.

A delegation of the CPGB-ML visiting Tripoli between 12-14 June was taken to see civilian sites destroyed by Nato, including the devastated rooms of the house of Saif al-Arab. A few days later, the market in the town centre was bombed, as was the Al Fatah university in Tripoli.

On Sunday 19 June, Nato killed nine civilians including a baby and a child, and for the first time apologised for the killings. A Nato spokesman, turning facts on their head, hypocritically stated:

“Nato regrets any loss of civilian lives and is doing all it can to protect the people of Libya from the violence waged by the Gaddafi regime. This campaign has conducted over 4,400 strike sorties. Every mission is planned and executed with precision and care with a high record of accuracy.

“We take all reports of civilian casualties very seriously and we will continue to look into the facts related to this event. Nato would be sorry if the review … did indicate that it was caused by a Nato weapon.”

From reading this mockery of an apology one may be forgiven for thinking that Nato has made an innocent little mistake in the larger plan of protecting the Libyan people from the violence of the Libyan regime. The truth is that it is Nato which is showering death and destruction on the Libyan people, against which the latter are putting up heroic resistance under the leadership of the Libyan government of Colonel Gaddafi. And the day following the ‘apology’, 20 June, Nato bombings killed another 15 civilians, including three children.

After the devastation and carnage wreaked on Libya by Nato, after killing and injuring several thousand civilians, after several attempts on the life of the Libyan leader and the assassination of four members of his family, British defence officials, possessed of a sick sense of humour, say that Gaddafi suffers from “a sense of paranoia”! Hardly surprising! Would these gallant officials behave differently if they were targeted with laser-guided Paveway III bunker buster bombs dropped from Tornado GRA jets?

The British defence secretary, Dr Liam Fox, this Hitler-without-moustache and without a swastika on his lapel, has cynically characterised the murderous activity of Nato’s assassination squad as “sending them increasingly loud messages”. One wonders if he would maintain his aplomb if his office or residence were to be at the receiving end of such a “loud message”!

Libyan regime stands firm

The principal imperialist powers waging this unjust war of aggression had expected the Libyan regime to collapse within three or four weeks of massive bombardment by the combined forces of the US, Britain, France and several other countries. To their utter dismay, the Libyan regime stands firm and retains the popular support of the vast majority of the Libyan people, while the insurgents, rechristened as the Transitional National Council (TNC), have failed abysmally to make any significant progress on the battlefield, despite having the world’s most powerful air force on their side.

Equally, the imperialist hopes of regime collapse have failed to materialise, notwithstanding the defection of the former ministers of foreign affairs, justice and the interior, as well as a number of diplomats.

“Time is on our side – it is not on Gaddafi’s side,” remarked David Cameron recently. Cameron’s bravado flies in the face of the stalemate reached on the battlefield between the Libyan forces and the ragtag collection of insurgents – a stalemate that has begun to force a section of even our corrupt journalists to recognise reality, albeit in grudging and convoluted terms, for what it is.

Writing in the Financial Times recently, James Blitz, Michael Peel and Anna Fifield expressed their frustration at the stiff resistance put up by the Libyan regime, its refusal to submit to the diktat of imperialism, the popular support it enjoys and its failure to crumble as per the hopes of imperialism:

At the heart of the difficulties facing the Nato coalition remains the stubbornness of Colonel Gaddafi and his acolytes. For all the defections that have taken place, there have not been cracks in the regime that make his departure a certainty. The Libyan leader remains protected by a network of armed civilians and regime loyalists … 

Nor outside the rebel areas have there been any popular uprisings against him.” (‘An uncertain mission’, 23 June 2011)

Waning support for the war

A whole four months into this murderous war, and for all the lethality of its most up-to-date killing machines and the material resources at its command, Nato has been unable to break the stalemate in Libya, forcing the political, military, diplomatic and ideological representatives of imperialism to wonder whether this predatory venture can actually succeed or whether it is running into the Libyan sand.

Nato is today as far from achieving the mission it set itself – regime change in Tripoli – as it was four months ago. As a result of the stalemate, support for Nato’s war has further eroded, while opposition to it has grown, and the Nato coalition has begun to disintegrate.

In view of their failure to break the stalemate with air support, the leading Nato powers have now to decide whether to admit defeat and find a face-saving formula that allows them to beat a slightly less humiliating retreat, or to send in ground troops in large numbers, which, as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq eloquently prove, will by no means guarantee success. In any case, such a course of action would be highly unpopular in the countries waging the war, let alone amongst the rest of humanity.

In the run-up to the 100th day of the war, a Harris poll for the Financial Times found that any attempt by Nato to expand its operations in Libya, either by bombing Libyan utilities and infrastructure, such as electricity and water supplies, or by introducing ground troops, would be opposed by the majority of the people in big European countries and the US. According to the Harris survey, 53 percent of the people in the UK and 65 percent in France oppose bombing civilian targets, while 48 percent in the UK, 51 percent in France and 56 percent in the US are opposed to the introduction of ground troops. A recent CBS News poll revealed that 60 percent of the people of the US are opposed to the bombing of Libya. The longer this war continues, the greater the opposition it will arouse.

Dissension within the imperialist camp

In fact, Britain and France are incapable of waging the Libyan war for much longer, let alone bringing it to a successful conclusion on their own. They need the US, where the war is even more unpopular than it is in Britain and France.

Britain’s military top brass have let it be known in no uncertain terms that the armed forces they command are overstretched. In the middle of June air Chief Marshall Sir Simon Bryant and naval chief Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope openly expressed their doubts about the UK’s ability to wage war in Libya, saying that the prolongation of the Libyan war would force the armed forces to transfer equipment from other theatres, notably Afghanistan.

The government is in a quandary, for it can hardly lavish further largesse on the armed forces while it is busy imposing savage public expenditure cuts and higher taxes on the working class. As a result, there is a total mismatch between the imperialist ambitions of Britain’s ruling class and the means with which to pursue those ambitions.

Irritated by these public observations of two of Britain’s top soldiers, David Cameron rebuked them on 28 June, saying “You do the fighting and I’ll do the talking.” Shorn of euphemism, he told his service chiefs to shut up. Such an open spat would not have taken place if the Libyan war, Britain’s 46th intervention in the Middle East since 1945, had been going well.

Similar doubts have been expressed in France by the French naval chief.

The US participation in this war is decisive, but the Obama administration faces much opposition to the war in the country as well as in Congress. Strangely, some of the opposition is coming from the Republican side. A considerable number of congressmen have accused Mr Obama of waging the Libyan war in violation of the War Powers Act of 1973, which requires US Chief Executives to terminate hostilities after 60 days unless they have been authorised to continue by Congress, a deadline that was reached on 20 May.

Obama defied the WPA on the plea that the US involvement in Libya fell short of full-scale hostilities. In the end, “the House dealt a symbolic blow to President Obama on Friday [24 June] rejecting a bill to authorise United States military operations in Libya. But the chamber also defeated a measure that would have limited financing to support those efforts. ” (‘House spurns Obama on Libya, but does not cut funds’ by Jennifer Steinhauer, New York Times, 24 June 2011)

A typical rogues’ compromise, which nevertheless reflects the overwhelming opposition of the people of the US to the war on Libya!

Meanwhile Robert Gates, the then outgoing defence secretary, delivered a speech on 10 June after a two-day meeting of Nato defence ministers in Brussels, in which he came close to saying that the European members of the alliance were a useless bunch of timewasters, feckless and unreliable. Accusing the Europeans of not pulling their weight and not devoting adequate resources to defence, he said that they faced “the very real possibility of collective military irrelevance”, as the cash-strapped US was no longer willing to subsidise Nato operations in Libya and other places.

“The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country,” he said, “yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the US, once more, to make up the difference.”

He continued: “The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the US Congress – and in the American body politic writ large – to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defence.”

Nato, he said, had degenerated into a “two-tiered” alliance, with the US and a small number of European members doing the difficult jobs, whereas others benefited from Nato’s protection while avoiding costs and risks. A situation in which the US accounted for 75 percent of military expenditure in Nato was “unacceptable and unsustainable”.

Gates’s wrath was especially reserved for Germany, Poland, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands, which had the means but refused to contribute to the Libyan war. Germany and Poland together have 400 combat jets, which they refused to throw into the war, despite all Nato members having sanctioned it. If this situation continued, Mr Gates predicted, Nato faced a dismal future.

The disarray and recriminations within Nato, born out of the bitter experiences of the Afghan and Iraq wars and the frustrating and inconclusive nature of the Libyan adventure, are threatening seriously to undermine and destroy this most potent instrument of imperialist war and aggression. On top of all this, budgetary constraints and the resultant cuts in military expenditure in Europe are beginning to be replicated in the US.

Admiral Mike Mullen, head of the US joint chiefs of staff, has characterised the budget deficit as the single biggest threat to US national security and, therefore, the largest obstacle to waging the predatory wars that have, since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, been launched under the fig leaf of ‘liberal interventionism’.

Thus the very necessity of waging predatory wars, resulting from the crisis of imperialism, is impairing the ability of the foremost imperialist powers to wage them. The imperialist powers are propelled to wage these wars for spoilage and for redivision, but as a result they end up weaker. They face destruction if they don’t wage these wars, but the wars in fact only hasten their destruction. Such are the dialectics of this process.

As if the above problems were not enough for Nato, on 7 July Silvio Berlusconi, Italy’s prime minister, became the first Nato leader openly to break ranks by voicing serious doubts about the chances of success, saying that he had been against the war from the outset. Speaking at a book presentation he said: “I was against this measure. I had my hands tied by the vote in parliament of my country, but I was against – and am against – this intervention, which will end in a way that no-one knows.” (Quoted in ‘Italy breaks silence on Libya doubts’, Financial Times, 8 July 2011)

Mr Berlusconi’s remarks will add to unease about the fragility of Nato’s war, which, after four months, has little to show for itself except the death and destruction rained down upon the Libyan people. And they strengthen a growing foreboding that the entire project will end in fiasco if Nato does not manage to topple the Libyan regime by the end of the summer – which it is most unlikely to do.

Undoubtedly, Mr Berlusconi was nudged to speak out by the negotiations that the Libyan government has started with Russian and Chinese energy groups to take over the oil and gas projects of ENI, the largest oil company in Libya, which pulled out its international staff earlier this year following the launch of the rebellion.

Opposition by other countries

Russia and China, who abstained on UNSC Resolution 1973, which provided Nato with the legal pretext for the war against Libya, have since then stepped up their campaign against the war, saying that it is being conducted by overstepping, and therefore in breach of, the UN mandate, as has South Africa, which voted for the resolution.

However belatedly, Russia has denounced the “indiscriminate” use of force by Nato and called for a ceasefire and a negotiated settlement. The Russian foreign ministry has said that it was “inadmissible” to use the Security Council resolution for the achievement of aims that “clearly go beyond its mandate … to protect the civilian population”.

Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov has said that intervention by Nato “in what is essentially a civil war has not been sanctioned by the UN Security Council resolution”. Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister, was more to the point when he denounced Resolution 1973 itself by calling it a “deficient and flawed document that allows anyone to take any action against a sovereign state”.

He went on to add: “To me, it actually resembles medieval calls for crusades, when someone called on others to go to a certain place to liberate it.” That being the case, what Mr Putin failed to explain was why Russia did not veto the resolution to prevent the carnage that was only too likely to flow from it?

Even leaders of weak countries with small populations, who might normally be expected to keep their heads down so as not to incur the wrath of powerful imperialist brigands, have begun courageously to oppose Nato’s aggression and extend support to the Libyan government and leader.

At the beginning of July, speaking at the Caribbean Community (Caricom) Heads of Government meeting in St Kitts, Roosevelt Skerrit, prime minister of Dominica, denounced Nato’s military action against Libya and extended unequivocal support to the Libyan leader. For their part, the leaders of Caricom fearlessly condemned Nato’s aggression and indiscriminate bombing of civilians in residential areas, and called for an immediate halt to the aggression, which they rightly asserted was in violation of Resolution 1973, confined as the latter was to protecting civilians.

Denzil Douglas, the prime minister of St Kitts and current chairman of Caricom, stated that the group realised the roots of the plot hatched against Libya lay in the pro-African policies and the mineral reserves of that country.

The Kosovo model

In their attempts to effect regime change in Tripoli, the imperialist powers of Nato have been re-enacting the Kosovo model, developed and perfected during Nato’s war against the former Yugoslavia. Under this model, the imperialist powers bypass the UN or overstep its mandate. Simultaneously they foment internal strife in the targeted country in order to get rid of its leadership under the pretext of ‘human rights before sovereignty’. Finally, to legitimise their illegal and predatory war, they mobilise the so-called International Criminal Court (ICC) to charge the victims of their war crimes with crimes against humanity.

Britain, France and the US coerced the Security Council into passing Resolutions 1970 and 1973. The first of these, passed in February, referred leading figures in the Libyan government to the ICC and also established an embargo on the shipment of weapons to Libya, while the second established a no-fly zone to “protect civilians”.

The IC was created in 1998 as a permanent body to exercise jurisdiction over the most serious international atrocities: crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide and, above all, the crime of aggression. Although over 100 states have signed up to this tribunal, some important states, including the US, Russia and China, have not, which makes the unanimous adoption of Resolution 1970 all the more bizarre.

Nato has violated that part of Resolution 1970 which prohibits the shipment of weapons to Libya by arming the rebels, while it has turned the ICC into an instrument of the Nato war criminals – who have been waging a Hitlerite war of aggression against Libya and committing untold crimes – to try the victims of its own aggressive war. In fact, it is the Nato leaders – Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy et al – who should be tried for waging this predatory war, for the murder of Colonel Gaddafi’s son and three of his grandchildren, as well as for thousands of Libyans murdered or injured through Nato’s bombing raids.

Instead, perversely, in the third week of May ICC chief prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo made a request for an international arrest warrant to be issued against Colonel Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Gaddafi, and the head of Libyan intelligence, Abdullah al-Sanussi, even while Nato air forces were busy launching devastating raids on the areas controlled by Libyan government forces. In doing so, Mr Ocampo has shown himself to be an unquestioning servile flunkey of the imperialist powers waging war against the Libyan people.

His intervention occurred just as the war was going badly for Nato and its Libyan puppets, with the Bedouin tribes entering the fight on the government’s side, and the opening of a second front in Benghazi by local militias tired of the criminal excesses of the insurgents, and also coincided with an attempt on Gaddafi’s life.

As for Resolution 1973, it was illegal to begin with, and has been abused still further since its passing.

It was illegal because the UN Charter does not permit the use of armed force for humanitarian interventions. Chapter VII of the UN Charter allows the Security Council to authorise action against a party to a dispute, but only if that party’s actions endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, and only after attempts to “seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice” have failed.

No one in their right mind can maintain that the situation in Libya in February/March of this year constituted a threat to the maintenance of international peace and security. Nor can it be asserted that any attempt was made at resolving the crisis in Libya through any negotiations whatsoever. If anything, it is Nato’s war against Libya that is threatening international peace and security, as are the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And it is Nato that has consistently refused to countenance any negotiations for peaceful resolution of the crisis in Libya.

What has been going on in Libya since mid-February is a civil war, which is entirely an internal Libyan affair, to be decided by the relative strength of the parties, without any outside interference. In this respect it is no different from the 17th-century civil war in Britain, the 18th-century civil war in France or the 19th-century civil war in the US.

As anyone with knowledge of the American civil war would know, the sympathies of Britain’s ruling class were with the slave-owning south, which had rebelled against the federal government and started the war. Britain rendered material help to the south, in particular by fitting out the southern warship, the Alabama, which then went on to do considerable damage to the Union (northern) naval forces.

At the end of the war, the US government claimed damages from Britain for its support of the rebels. Britain submitted to the arbitration tribunal, which gave its judgment in favour of the US. Britain had no option but to pay up for its reactionary actions in support of the slave-holders’ rebellion. We very much hope that the imperialist countries entering the Libyan civil war on the side of the rebels will likewise be made to pay for their murderous actions.

Regime change

Even if Resolution 1973 were legal, it does not actually authorise the use of force for the purpose of regime change in Libya. Yet that is what Britain, France and the US have been aiming at since well before the resolution was passed. Indeed, the CIA was on Libyan soil and actively supporting the rebels as early as 25 February 2011, the date when the US embassy in Tripoli was officially closed.

Dozens of British agents and commandos from MI6, the SAS (Special Air Services) and SBS (Special Boat Services) were also operating inside Libya at the same time, while three Dutch marines were caught by Libyan forces in Sirte, and Italy, in repudiation of its non-aggression pact with Libya, had on 27 February (three weeks before Resolution 1973 was passed) made available its military bases for use by Britain and France.

During this same period, the US moved its nuclear aircraft carrier, USS Enterprise, from the Gulf of Aden to the waters off the Libyan coast. It also stationed two amphibian ships, USS Kearsage and USS Ponce, with thousands of marines and fleets of helicopters aboard, in the Mediterranean, so as to be ready for action at a moment’s notice.

“There is no question that Libya – and the world – would be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means”, said president Obama in his address to the nation at the National Defence University, Washington DC, on 28 March – a mere two weeks after Resolution 1973 had been passed. As befits a bourgeois winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace, this hypocritical mountebank has been trying his utmost to effect regime change in Libya through such ‘non-military’ means as Cruise and Tomahawk missiles, fighter planes and other materiel from his deadly arsenal.

Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron openly stated in a joint letter that they will not consider the mission in Libya to be over till Colonel Gaddafi has been removed. (See Daily Mail, 15 April 2011)

Thus it is perfectly clear that Nato’s mission has nothing to do with ‘protecting civilian lives’, as its leaders claimed in the UN, but is in fact aimed at effecting regime change in Libya as a means of grabbing the country’s mineral resources, reversing the tide of the Arab revolutions sweeping across Tunisia and Egypt, preventing the emergence of an alliance between Libya, Tunisia and Egypt, and reasserting imperialist domination over the whole of the Mediterranean.

How little concern Nato has for the protection of human lives may be gleaned from just one simple example. In early April, a boat trying to reach the Italian port of Lampedusa was left to drift in the Mediterranean for 16 days, leaving the 61 African migrants on board, including women and children, to die of hunger and thirst. Despite the alarm being raised with the Italian coastguard and contact being established with a Nato warship, most likely the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, no help was provided to the hapless victims, even though international maritime law obliges vessels, civilian and military, to come to the aid of those in distress at sea. Typically, Nato’s response was to deny all knowledge of the distress of these victims.

“Nato units are fully aware of their responsibilities with regard to international maritime law regarding safety at sea. Nato ships will answer all distress calls at sea. Saving lives is a priority for any Nato ships,” hypocritically asserted an irritated Nato official, while denying receiving any distress signal from the boat.

Moreover, there is currently a famine going on in the Horn of Africa. In southern Somalia no less than half the population is suffering from malnutrition and is in urgent need of food aid. Tens of thousands have already died. Yet the ‘humanitarian’ US will to date send nothing because to give aid could ‘materially benefit’ groups it considers to be ‘terrorist’, such as al-Shabaab (the Somali anti-imperialist resistance movement). To avoid saving a few resistance fighters, it’s apparently OK for literally millions of people to be allowed to die of hunger.

And France, so keen to rush to provide ‘humanitarian aid’ to Libya, is among the EU countries being castigated by Oxfam for being particularly reluctant to contribute towards the mere £650m it estimates is needed to save more than 11 million Somalis, Kenyans and Ethiopians from starvation. Imperialism’s hypocrisy is truly sickening.

Continuing with efforts at regime change, on 24 May Washington dispatched Jeffrey Feltman, US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, to Benghazi to meet the TNC, where he delivered an “oral message” from president Obama that, in Washington’s view, the government of Gaddafi has “lost all legitimacy to rule; he cannot regain control of Libya and he must step down immediately”.

Feltman further told the TNC, which includes CIA agents and former disaffected Libyan ministers and officials, that Washington considered it to be the “credible legitimate representative of the Libyan people”, and invited it send a representative to the US capital. But, he told the TNC, unlike France and Italy, the US was not prepared to give formal recognition to the council. What stood in the way of this recognition was the status of the $100bn worth of Libyan funds frozen by the US and the EU, “the biggest bank robbery in history”, in the words of Mr John Pilger.

Now, however, the US and 29 other governments have taken the plunge by formally recognising the TNC as the government of Libya. Meeting on 19 July in Istanbul, the so-called Contact Group on Libya, which is essentially comprised of the imperialist countries and their Arab stooges, agreed formally to recognise the TNC as Libya’s government, thus clearing the way for these imperialist flunkeys to access the frozen Libyan funds and start paying their imperialist masters for the weapons and other materiel sent by the latter to prop them up.

Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, declared on behalf of the 30 governments represented at Istanbul that the Gaddafi regime no longer had legal authority: “I am announcing today that, until an interim authority is in place, the US will recognise the TNC as the legitimate governing authority for Libya, and we will deal with it on that basis,” she said.

Nato lies

The leaders of the international assassination squad that goes by the name of Nato keep repeating the lie that they are in Libya to protect civilians from the tyranny of the Libyan leader. Gaddafi’s departure, they assert, is the necessary precondition for a resolution of the Libyan crisis, and will be a triumph for Libya’s democracy and citizens alike. But nothing could be further from the truth than these assertions.

There is no basis in reality for the assertion that the Libyan government was slaughtering innocent peaceful protesters. The truth is that, beginning on 16 February, small groups of insurgents opposed to the Libyan government rose in armed rebellion. Over the following days, a pattern emerged in many cities – such as Benghazi, al-Bayda, Ajdabiya, Misurata, Zawiya, Derna and Zuwarah, among others – whereby police stations and internal security headquarters were attacked, vandalised, burned and looted, with the rebels taking advantage of the strict order given by the government to the security forces not to shoot. Ammunition depots were attacked and weapons seized by the attackers.

It is the rebels, not the Libyan regime, who are guilty of atrocities and the slaughter of innocent people. The uprising in Benghazi started with the brutal murder of six policemen by the rebels. The German newspaper, Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung, reported in the third week of March that the rebels had been guilty of pogrom-style massacres of black African workers, while a Turkish factory manager told the BBC that more than 70 of his workers from Chad had been murdered in cold blood.

In the areas under their control, the rebels have been systematically killing anyone they suspect of being a government supporter, as well as foreign black workers, whom they falsely accuse of being ‘mercenaries’ of the Libyan regime. This was true before the Nato bombardment began on 19 March, and it continues to be the case at present.

In a rare fit of candour, the Washington Post of 22 May gave details of the repression, lawlessness and death squads in the areas of rebel control – just as Catherine Ashton, the visiting EU foreign policy chief, stated that she had found only “great aspirations” and leadership qualities amongst the rebels.

By way of expressing such leadership qualities, rebel leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil, Libyan justice minister until February when he defected to the rebel cause, promised: “Our friends … will have the best opportunity in future contracts in Libya.” (Quoted in ‘The violent world of Mr Hopey Changey’ by John Pilger, New Statesman, 26 May 2011)

The eastern part of Libya, be it remembered, is home to a large proportion of Libya’s massive oil deposits.

The UNSC passed resolution 1973 on the basis of false reports, which it did not bother to investigate, to the effect that the Libyan security forces were slaughtering peaceful protesters, that the Libyan air force had bombed residential areas of Tripoli, and that the Libyan government had enlisted the services of mercenaries brought in from many African countries to brutalise and kill the peaceful protesters.

These reports were put into circulation by the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL), established in 1981, which has been receiving training and finance from the CIA ever since. (For a refutation of these lies, see ‘Libyan crisis … causes and facts’, by the Tripoli-based Fact Finding Commission and Global Civilians for Peace in Libya)

Imperialism’s fury

As we have pointed out before, Libya has infuriated imperialism by its independent stance, the use of its mineral resources to benefit its people, and by its support for progressive movements in many parts of the world, including and especially the African liberation movements.

It was not for nothing that, soon after his release from 27 years in an apartheid jail, Nelson Mandela broke the UN embargo by travelling to Libya on 23 October 1997. When Bill Clinton characterised the visit as ‘unwelcome’, Mandela retorted: “No country can claim to be the policeman of the world and no state can dictate to another what it should do,” adding “Those who yesterday were friends of our enemies have the gall today to tell me not to visit my brother Gaddafi. They are advising us to be ungrateful and forget our friends of the past.”

It is a pity that the South African government acted so ungratefully and forgot its friends when it voted for Resolution 1973 at the Security Council.

It was not until 2 July 2008 that the US Congress finally passed a law that removed Mandela and his ANC comrades from their blacklist.

Muammar Gaddafi has always emphasised the need for African unity, and Libya has devoted considerable time and resources towards promoting that goal and freeing Africa from the clutches of exploitation by the financial magnates and robber barons of monopoly capitalism.

Libya had offered to connect the entire African continent by telephone, television, radio broadcasting and many other technological applications, such as telemedicine and distance teaching. In 1992, RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organisation) was established by 45 African countries to enable Africa to have its own satellite and thus drastically slash communication costs on the continent. At that time, Africa was paying $500m a year in rental fees to Europe for use of its satellites, such as Intelsat, for phone conversations, including those within each country.

An African satellite would have required a mere $400m one-time payment and freed Africa from the $500m annual charge. Not surprisingly, the World Bank, the IMF, the US and Europe dragged their feet for 14 years, making vague promises of help but delivering nothing. Colonel Gaddafi put an end to this state of affairs by providing $300m, to which the ADB (African Development Bank) added $50m and the West African Development Bank another $27m. As a result, Africa secured its first communications satellite on 26 December 2007.

China and Russia followed in the wake of this breakthrough by sharing their technology and helping to install satellites for South Africa, Nigeria, Angola and Algeria, and a second all-African satellite was launched in July 2010. Meanwhile, plans are afoot to build an indigenous African satellite, to be manufactured in Algeria, in the year 2020 – which is aimed at competing with the best in the world, but at a tenth of the cost of western satellites.

With just $300m, Libya has freed the African continent from being at the mercy of imperialism in the field of communications.

Of the Libyan funds ‘frozen’ (‘stolen’ would be a more accurate word) by the US and the EU, $30bn had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three crucial projects aimed at giving substance to the African federation: the African Investment Bank, to be based in Sirte, Libya; the African Monetary Fund, to be located in Yaounde, Cameroon, with capital of $42bn (of which $16bn was to come from Algeria and $10bn from Libya), and the African Central Bank, to be housed in Abuja, Nigeria. When it starts printing its own currency, the ACB will put paid to the CFA franc, which has been the financial instrument for the French domination of many African countries over the last 50 years.

In view of this, it is not difficult to explain the anti-Gaddafi rage of French imperialism. Moreover, Libya has frustrated French attempts at disuniting Africa through the creation of the Union for the Mediterranean (UPM), to which only a handful of African countries were invited, while all 27 members of the EU were. This project would have created a French-dominated organisation and facilitated France’s return to its erstwhile African colonies, where it hoped to derive huge profits from cheap labour and privileged opportunities for the export of capital. Gaddafi correctly characterised the Sarkozy plan as “an insult” which took “us for fools”.

Likewise, the AMF would seriously have undermined the activities of the IMF in Africa.

If Nato were to succeed in overwhelming the Libyan regime, the people of the entire African continent, not just the Libyan people, will suffer grievously. A regime change in Libya will leave many African countries starved of resources, with the Libyan oil and gas money flowing instead straight into the coffers of various imperialist financial institutions, defence contractors and other monopoly corporations.

China targeted

China is another country whose interests will be hugely damaged in the event of a Nato victory. Before the Nato bombardment began, 75 major Chinese companies were operating in Libya, where they had concluded $18bn worth of contracts. Following the Nato attack, 35,000 Chinese workers had to be evacuated from the country, and these companies are now expected to suffer huge losses.

Over the past 15 years, China’s trade with, and investment in, Africa has made remarkable progress. If China’s trade with Africa was valued at $6bn in 1995, in 2010 its value exceeded $130bn – a 25-fold increase. The South African Standard Bank estimates that by 2015 Chinese direct investment in Africa will amount to $50bn.

Presently, China receives 28 percent of its oil imports from Africa, a percentage that is likely to increase. Unlike the US and the EU, China has been busy building roads, railways, schools and other infrastructure in Africa. All of this infuriates the chief imperialist powers, who feel the ground slipping from underneath their feet on a continent that has for so long been the source of fabulous profits for them. Not without reason, serious writers on the subject are convinced that Nato’s war against Libya is designed, partly at least, to send a message to those leaders in Africa who are minded to take an independent stance that they must bow to the American baton and shy away from close commercial and diplomatic relations with China.

On a tour of Africa in June, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Zambia, where she spoke at a conference of African governments. In her speech, she openly attacked China’s expanding ties with several African countries and exhorted them to deepen their trade relations with the US instead.

Libyan people’s support for their government

Since the start of the rebellion, the Libyan government has consistently shown its willingness to negotiate a settlement, but Nato and its TNC puppets have rejected all Libyan government proposals for a ceasefire or for negotiations. The proposals made by Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez in February, as well as those of the African Union in early April and early June, have all been spurned by Nato.

In the circumstances, the Libyan government has but one option: to stand firm and resist. The Libyan people, led by their government, have so far displayed admirable steadfastness and fortitude in facing this mighty imperialist alliance. If they continue along this path, which we are convinced they will, then, to use the words of Fidel Castro, “Nato and its criminal projects will sink into the mire of shame.” (Cited in the Indian Frontline magazine, 22 April 2011)

As the CPGB-ML delegation noted, the Libyan people continue to go about their daily life without showing any signs of despair or despondency, while the Libyan government continues to enjoy the enthusiastic support of the overwhelming majority of its people. Hardly a week goes by without a million-strong pro-government demonstration in the centre of Tripoli – in defiance of the murderous Nato bombers. These uncomfortable facts may be ignored by the imperialist media and their pack of corrupt journalists, but they are true all the same.

Moreover, the Libyan regime has armed its citizens, a single fact which demonstrates that it is anything but tyrannical. If the imperialists decide to send ground troops into Libya, these armed citizens, far from turning their weapons against a hated government, are ready to give a very good account of themselves and to fight to the last drop of their blood against those who wish to overthrow their leaders and destroy their way of life.

It is perfectly possible that the truth has begun to penetrate the skulls of Nato’s leaders, for, as we go to press, the news has come through that the US has been involved in negotiations with representatives of the Libyan government at a location in Tunisia.

Meanwhile, it is the duty of workers in the imperialist countries to extend their solidarity to the Libyan people and to refuse to cooperate with the criminal war being waged by their ruling classes against the Libyan people.

Posted in LibyaComments Off on Nato’s war crimes in Libya

Shoah’s pages