Archive | November 6th, 2012

Zio-puppet King of Jordan warned Israhell on Arab plans, wich launched the Yom Kippur War

NOVANEWS

ZIONIST PUPPET HUSSEIN BIN SHLOMO OF JORDAN
Zio-Nazi regime has provided the Hashemite family with a protective umbrella by stating that a threat to the Jordanian royal house constitutes a casus belli for IsraHell. This situation has successfully withstood several tests, particularly in 1970. For its part, IsraHell has found the Hashemite family to be a partner in two important spheres. The Hashemite kingdom has become a de facto demilitarized zone with no enemy forces, and has usually prevented hostile use of its territory and long borders with IsraHell.
In certain senses, IsraHell strategic depth extends to eastern Jordan. In addition, an Zionist-Hashemite partnership, albeit limited, has emerged concerning the containment of Palestinian national aspirations and their direction to channels that relieve the threat to IsraHell and the Hashemite monarchy.Jordan was too weak to seal its territory hermetically against ”terrorist” action and expeditionary forces directed against IsraHell. Its weakness even infrequently obliged it to participate in Arab coalitions against IsraHell. Yet most of the time and on most issues it kept its part of the symbiotic bargainWorthy of note is the warning provided by Zionist/CIA  puppet King Hussein to IsraHell about the Arab plans to launch the Yom Kippur War.
The peace agreement signed by IsraHell and Jordan in 1994 was little more than a symbolic declaration of a strategic reality that in any case had already existed for  decades.Today, however, the Zionist puppet Hashemite dynasty faces complex threats from a number of directions, and its future is unclear. The fïrst threat is“ the internal  agitation in Jordan“ has reached a stage in which the legitimacy of the Zionist king is challenged openly. The second threat is that even the Bedouin tribes, who have been the mainstay of the monarchy, are beginning to take part in the agitation against the Zionist king.
[ed notes:also see…  JORDANS ZIONIST PUPPET KING HOSTS GLOBALISTS,WAR-CRIMINALS,ZIONISTS,CIA PUPPET ”ARAB RULERS” AND THE NEOLIBERAL ECONOMIC AGENDA ”SOLUTION” … At World Economic Forum, Arab Spring looms large.
ZIONISTWATCH-ISRAHELL SAYS IT ENSURES PUPPET KING OF JORDAN NOT OVERTHROWN 
US AND ISRA-HELL’s PUPPET KING OF JORDAN SAYS ”THE APARTHEID ZIONIST ISRAELI STATE MUST HAVE SECURITY” IN ANY FUTURE AGREEMENT WITH P.A.? 

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, JordanComments Off on Zio-puppet King of Jordan warned Israhell on Arab plans, wich launched the Yom Kippur War

Torah scrolls ruined by Hurricane Sandy

NOVANEWS

By: The Ugly Truth

Blotched parchments unrolled to dry at Mazel Day School’s synagogue after being destroyed by floodwaters. Damage estimates at hundreds of thousands of dollars, Jewish community ‘heartbroken’

ed note–but, but, but, I thought that the Torah meant NOTHING to today’s Jews…Yes, I have heard it, a million times from ‘experts’ within the ‘truth movement’ who claim that it is THE EEEEEVIL TALMUD and NOT the HOLY-SCHMOLEY Torah that the Jews revere.

Pardon the sarcasm here folks, but needed to do this to make a point. The Torah is the FOUNDATION of Judaism, Jewish thinking and Jewish identity, and anyone from within the ‘troof’ movement who says differently does not know what he/she is talking about.

The source of the Jewish problem is the Torah, for without it there would be no Talmud nor any Jewish supremacism.

ynet

The pictures posted on the Facebook page of the Mazel Day School in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn leave no room for doubt: Sandy was here.

The photos, categorized under the title, “Sandy vs. Mazel,” show wet books, shelves, computers and tables scattered all over the classroom floors.

The most painful damage, as far as the Jewish community is concerned, was sustained by Torah scrolls in the adjacent synagogue, and the pictures of blotched parchments unrolled to dry on the shul’s benches have been shared on the Internet by hundreds of shocked worshippers.

The Mazel Day School, which belongs to Chabad, serves the Russian-speaking Jewish community in Brighton Beach in south Brooklyn. The neighborhood, which was once home to Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, has in recent years absorbed a large community of immigrants from the former Soviet Union, including many Jews.

So far, the damage has been estimated at $450,000, which does not include the cost of repairing the Torah scrolls, that are worth alone hundreds of thousands of dollars.

“It breaks my heart, makes me cry,” said a woman whose children study in the school after viewing the damage. “I can’t even show the pictures to my children.”

School principal Chani Okonov says the destruction caused by the storm “left the Jewish community heartbroken.”

According to Okonov, “Years of hard work, love and attention were dedicated to the establishment of this school, which is the only Jewish educational institution in the area.”

The school’s ground floor, which sustained the greatest damage, includes a synagogue which serves the community’s 250 families.

‘The volunteer work is heartwarming’ (Photo: Ruta Okonov)

Since the storm has gone, many of the community members have been working to restore the school and synagogue. “The volunteer work is heartwarming,” says Okonov, “but financial support from external sources is critical for the restoration of the school, which has a crucial role in the Jewish-Russian community.”

In a fund raising website opened Wednesday, the school wrote: “Before the storm Sandy, we were working tirelessly to fundraise for a new building to expand our middle school and to add more children from the extensive wait list. The storm has crashed our dreams and has hit us with a reality of now raising funds to replace what we previously had.

Destruction at Satmar Yeshiva in Sea Gate

In the meantime, the building’s condition makes it impossible to pray in the synagogue or study in the school. In the Facebook page, one of the teachers provided a link to a website offering online lessons on different subjects.

“Our children don’t have anywhere else to go and we are looking for your help in giving them another chance. Our priority is to get our children back in classrooms so they can continue to learn and flourish.”

Water reaches yeshiva’s 2nd floor
In Sea Gate, the Jewish neighborhood which sustained the greatest damage during the storm, Satmar Hasidim cannot believe their eyes: The hurricane managed to overtake the yeshiva, with water reaching the second floor and flooding the magnificent house of study.

“The yeshiva management was prepared for the storm,” one of the Hasidim told Ynet. “Today they arrived to see the damage and were overwhelmed by the destruction. All the books, all the furniture – everything was floating in the water.”

In this case too, the damage is estimated at hundreds of thousands of dollars. In the meantime, the yeshiva students have moved to the Satmar house of study in the nearby Borough Park neighborhood, and it will likely take at least two weeks and up to a month to restore the place.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Torah scrolls ruined by Hurricane Sandy

DILLUSIONAL ISRAHELLI THINK TANK… WAR WITH IRAN SIMULATION…RATIONALIZING ZIONIST PUSH FOR WW3 WHILE ARGUING ANOTHER OUTCOME (CONTAINMENT OF IRAN) IS POSSIBLE AS WELL

NOVANEWS

WWIII or containment – INSS simulation of immediate period after Israeli attack on Iran
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=58846   War Game: The Hours following an Attack on Iran’s Nuclear Infrastructures – The Policies of the Actors and Principal Insights INSS Insight No. 382, November 4, 2012 Dekel, Udi and Lerner, Yonathan http://www.inss.org.il/publications.php?cat=21&incat=&read=10461  Main Policies of the Various Actors
Russia chose to promote its objectives in the Caucasus and Europe. Russia also viewed the attack as an opportunity to position itself as the leading actor in the international community because of its ability to communicate with all the actors involved. However, the gap between the US and the Russian positions led to a paralysis of the international community’s ability to act. In turn, and in the absence of American leadership, China, with access to all the relevant actors, became a key player on the international field.[ed notes:Russia and China both have defense pacts with Iran..they migth not engage openly ,but you can bet they will sabotage any allies of israhells efforts against Iran and its allies in region as well…Russia: “Should Anything Happen to Iran … This Will Be a Direct …
Syria preferred to focus on its domestic upheaval, maintain a low profile, and not be dragged into combat against Israel.[ed notes:If you think Syria seeing Iran and Hezbollah defending itself/Iran will sit idly by and sit the coflict out,you are insane..Syria will retaliate with maximum force,and expose the already outed western zionist opposition in country,for not aligning with campaign against Zionist war machine..they are already exposed as such..all he’ll have to do is say the day of wrath is now,we will defend the region from israhelli attacks,join in against the Zionist enemy or expose yourselves further(rebels lie claim assad doesnt want war with israhell while they meet with zionists
Links to this post – THENAKEDFACTS EXPLOSIVE- ISRAHELLI TROOPS INSIDE SYRIA…POSING AS …  SYRIAN OPPOSITION AND ISRAHELLI … – THENAKEDFACTS   ZIONISTS AND FSA HANG OUT IN BARRACKS IN TURKEY-VIDEO-ZIONIST WAR MONGERS FROM WINEP 
..if they dont …thats political suicide on their part,wether they do or dont..but Assad will definatly strike back…notice how zionists at inss assume because they sponsor opposition against Syrian govt,that in of itself that ensures Assad cant retaliate against israhell to aid Iran because they ahve their own preoccupations to deal with..that was the whole aim of its destabilization against assad,to soften up the country while preparing to attack Iran…the real goal behind it..regime change Iran..,however,inss are truly mistaken and misreading the situation and predicament wich will result from a conflict between Iran and israhell..
Hizbollah found itself in a quandary.
On the one hand, Hizbollah came under heavy Iranian pressure to begin a massive launch of missiles and rockets at Israel, this being the “day of reckoning” for which Iran had furnished Hizbollah with 50,000 missiles and rockets. On the other hand, Hizbollah was wary about causing heavy damage in Lebanon yet again. It therefore chose to respond to Iran’s demands selectively by launching rockets at Israeli military targets, especially airfields and active anti-missile defense systems. Israel’s restrained response intensified Hizbollah’s dilemma and supported its decision to attack to a relatively limited degree and focus on military targets.
[ed notes:Hezbollah is going to decimate you,the raining of all  or most of its arsenal on you…is going to make northern part of israhell cease to exist as it is known today.The idea or supposition that hezbollah will be concerned about march 14 alliance(zionist collaborators)concerns(of israhelli incursion into lebanon as a result) is laughable..Hezbollah will defend southern lebanon at all costs with every drop of blood and sacrifice…an attack on Iran is precurser for the day of judgement upon the Zionist entity…the drones alone it will unleash will bring terror into your black soulless hearts…
Hamas chose to walk a fine line by demonstrating some commitment towards Iran, while making sure not to provide Israel with an excuse for a large scale attack in the Gaza Strip. Hamas’ limited ability to control rogue and radical elements in Gaza was evident, and Hamas was forced to ask the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt for help in restraining the rogue elements it lacked the power to control.
[ed notes;Hamas is a joke they have no serious backing in Palestine,its no secret they never even won ellections in west bank against fatah years ago..this is because on voting day few years back the zionist israhelli occupation prevented west bank citizens from even reaching ballots for most part(this i know from my brother ”Pali” in west bank)who stated and exposed this to me on day one of events!!That meant that israhell and us gave ellections to Hamas!!!Hamas is a joke just as is mb…they too are finished,they have zero credibilty and work with west,and zionists..just like elements in fatah itself!!
The other actors – Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Turkey, and the international community: Each chose to operate on the basis of its own particular interests, distance itself from the events, and prevent widespread regional escalation
[ed notes;gulf states ,turkey and egypt under mb might sit it out as they are compromised and puppet regimes of the west…yet all will face domestic backlash for being seen as subserviant puppet regimes to hostile enemies of muslims,while the the real resistance now is defending itself against israhell and its zionist allies coming to its defense!!ramifications for those already unstable puppet-ships who sit it out will only bring their demise to forefront of following events and  upheavals in their own respective countries!!most arab populations support Irans right to nuclear energy!!!
The destabilization of Syria was a precursor to an attack on Iran by the expansionist Zionist regime in Israhell..they believe that situation is favourable in the sense that gcc is in their camp(wich it is)that Hezbollah has less support in Lebanon thanks to western engineered march 14th schemes(wich are behind rebels as well.)(that plan was outlined by madeline albright btw years ago see) 
FLASHBACK-LADY ALBRIGTH ”WHORE OF BABYLON” AND – Shoah .,what they fail to realize,is israhell proxies are cowards,and should the outbreak of an airstrike on Iran take place..the final battle will weed out collaborators of Zionist west,from the real resistance willing to die to defeat the Zionist enemy from thereon(any fraud movement not on board at that point will be targeted soon after as well)….that too will be a prelude to their own downfall,since none of these anti revolutionary forces,have any real support on ground or bases anyway..the Zionist arrogance makes them assume they are in a position of power to determine course of events suiting their agendas,however,their plans are really dillusional and sure to backfire in every sense of the word…

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, IranComments Off on DILLUSIONAL ISRAHELLI THINK TANK… WAR WITH IRAN SIMULATION…RATIONALIZING ZIONIST PUSH FOR WW3 WHILE ARGUING ANOTHER OUTCOME (CONTAINMENT OF IRAN) IS POSSIBLE AS WELL

Cameron on Standby to Send Warplanes to Gulf as Iranian Tensions Rise

NOVANEWS

Cameron weighs use of jets amid fears move could inflame situation

By Kim Sengupta

independent.co.uk

Britain is considering stationing warplanes in the Persian Gulf as the confrontation with Iran over its nuclear programme continues amid rising tension in the region, The Independent has learnt.

The possible deployment of the Eurofighter Typhoons follows talks with the United Arab Emirates to bolster the UK’s presence in the region at a time when Israel is threatening military strikes against Tehran and much of the Middle-East is in turbulence in the aftershock of the Arab Spring and Syria’s civil war.

The decision on whether to send the planes at such a volatile time will be made by David Cameron, after further talks with the rulers of Dubai and Abu Dhabi, and an announcement is expected to be made in the near future.

The arrival of British aircraft is bound to fuel the Iranian sense of insecurity even if there are assurances that the move is not aimed at them. The Defence Secretary Philip Hammond yesterday said European nations must be prepared to “take a bigger role in relation to North Africa and the Middle East”.

Israel, whose Defence Minister Ehud Barak is in London at the moment with the Iran crisis the main topic of discussion, is said to be “fully aware” and supportive of the discussions over the warplanes.

The British Government has urged Israel to exercise restraint over Iran, pointing out that sanctions are having a crippling effect on the Iranian economy – with the fall-out from the punitive measures making the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad increasingly unpopular and creating frictions in the ruling hierachy.

However, at the same time, UK military commanders are looking at the possibility of sending British jets to a base in Abu Dhabi which is currently being used by American and French forces as a confidence building measure but also, crucially, in case there are attempts by the Iranians to block the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway through which 40 per cent of the world’s oil supplies are shipped.

The Ministry of Defence said in a statement: “The UK regularly deploys Typhoon to UAE as part of our routine exercise programme and to demonstrate our military commitment to UAE and the security of the wider region. We have a mutual interest with our GCC [Gulf] partners in ensuring peace and stability in the region, and exercises such as this allow us to practice working together.” The MoD added: “These deployments are not due to our concerns over Iran’s nuclear programme. As we continue to make clear, the Government does not believe military action against Iran is the right course of action at this time, although no option is off the table.”

However, The Independent has learnt from highly senior military and diplomatic sources that the Al Dhafra airbase, 20 miles south of Abu Dhabi, is being looked at as a possible station for the Typhoons. The base is in use by French Mirage fighter-bombers as well as the 380th Air Expeditionary Wing of the US Air Force with jets and Patriot missile batteries and well located for operations in the Gulf.

Tehran has been bitterly critical about the American and French presence in the Gulf saying that it was an attempt to intimidate and that it posed a threat to their national interests.

Mr Barak said in London this week that Iran appears to have pulled back from proceeding full-steam to acquire nuclear weapons. But he reiterated Israel’s determination to carry out a military strike without warning if it felt this was necessary and met senior British military commanders as well as ministers.

One senior British officer said: “We do not think there is any need for military action at the moment. But we are considering all eventualities and where the UK should position itself. The decision on deployment will be made on mutual interest and growing interdependence between the UK and the UAE in the long-term.”

It has not yet been decided which country would pay for the Typhoons’ presence. However, the UAE government picks up the operational costs for the French, which has been variously estimated to be between €20 million and €45 million per year.

The UK has carried out two air exercises with the UAE, one codenamed Al Khanjar in 2010, involving Eurofighter Typhoons, and another one this year, with Tornado GR4s. The Tornados are, however, being phased out by 2019 and BAE has stated that the UAE has “real and genuine” interest in buying 60 of its Typhoons in preference to the French Dassault Rafale.

A massive contract for the Indian Air Force has gone to the the Rafale instead of the Typhoon, but British military commanders insist the Typhoon deployment to Abu Dhabi is guided by strategic rather than commercial considerations.

Weapon of choice: Eurofighter Typhoon

The Eurofighter Typhoon, introduced in 2003, was the result of an ambitious project by the governments of the UK, Germany, Italy and Spain to build the most advanced multi-function fighter jet in the world. Despite coming in almost 75 per cent over budget and being delayed several times, the jet is seen as a technologically advanced modern aircraft with few rivals.

The Typhoon’s performance in the Libyan conflict last year, where it flew over 600 missions, earned it plaudits – and interest from the governments of India and Brazil. With a top speed of 1,320mph and impressive manoeuvrability in the air, the Typhoon has often been compared to the US Air Force’s F-35 fighter jet. In 2007, Saudi Arabia confirmed it had signed a £4.43bn contract for 72 Typhoons.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on Cameron on Standby to Send Warplanes to Gulf as Iranian Tensions Rise

Remembering Abu Jihad And Why, Really, The IsraHelis Killed Him

NOVANEWS

By Alan Hart

More than 24 years after the event, and to prevent a battle with the newspaper in the courts, Israeli military censors cleared for publication by Yediot Ahronot a truth – that it was Israeli commandoes who, on 16 April 1988, went all the way to Tunis to murder Abu Jihad, the co-founder with Arafat of Fatah and, at the time of his death, Arafat’s number two and most likely successor in the event of his assassination.

The short story as now told by Yediot Ahronot confirms the long and detailed account as set down in the 1994 edition of my book Arafat (which was an updated version of the 1984 first edition with the title Arafat – Terrorist or Peacemaker?)

In this article my purpose is to provide the context for the Israeli decision to terminate Abu Jihad, and there is no better way of doing it than by offering my internet readers, here and now, the text of a very short chapter in Volume Three of the American edition of my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. It, Chapter 14, has the title Zionism as the Recruiting Sergeant for Violent Islamic Fundamentalism (Palestinian Style).

Here is the text.

December 1987 saw the start of the first intifada or Palestinian uprising in the occupied West Bank and Gaza. As it gathered momentum it captured and held the Western media’s attention, demonstrating once again that it was only when Palestinians resorted to violence, in this case stone-throwing, that their cry for a measure of justice was heard.

As part of its global propaganda effort to have the world believe that Arafat in faraway Tunis was an irrelevance, Zionism asserted that the uprising in the Occupied Territories had nothing to do with Arafat and his PLO, and that he was merely jumping onto the intifada bandwagon – to give his “discredited” organisation the appearance of life after death. (Two years earlier Israeli jets had gone all the way to Tunis to destroy Arafat’s headquarters and blow him to pieces! By chance, apparently, Arafat was not at his desk when the bombs fell.

The Israelis then were desperate to kill him because President Reagan’s new Secretary of State, George Shultz, had been trying, Vance-like, to involve the PLO in the peace process; and Britain’s Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, was about to make history by inviting two senior PLO executives to London for official talks. For their own propaganda purposes Israeli and other gut-Zionists proclaimed that Arafat was irrelevant but their actions demonstrated that they knew he was not.)

The explosion of Palestinian anger which became the first uprising against Israeli occupation was spontaneous, but Arafat and his leadership colleagues had anticipated it and made plans to sustain it.

Even as he was sailing away from Beirut for Tunis in August of 1982, Arafat was thinking about how to play the “internal (Occupied Territories) card”, to prevent the PLO being cancelled as a factor in the Middle East peace equation.

The following year he ordered a “General Exercise” in and around Nablus. “General Exercise” was the code for a confrontation between the PLO’s supporters and the occupying Israeli army. It was Arafat’s way of testing the feelings and mood of Palestinians throughout the Occupied Territories. The response was exactly what Arafat and Abu Jihad had predicted it would be. The confrontation in Nablus took place, but there was no support for the idea that it should be sustained and extended. A popular uprising was still the stuff of dreams.

Arafat, Abu Jihad and Hani Hassan (Arafat’s chief adviser and trouble-shooter) then conducted a detailed investigation of why the “General Exercise” had failed to inspire even a token demonstration of widespread support for the PLO. “We came to a very dramatic conclusion”, Hani told me. “We discovered that the silent majority of our people in the Occupied Territories had given their hearts if not their minds to the Islamic fundamentalists.”

What explained this enormous shift of popular opinion, a change of heart which suggested, among other things, that Arafat’s moderate PLO was in danger of becoming an irrelevance in the Occupied Territories?

Short answer – despair.

There was first of all, and obviously, the despair born of 20 years of occupation and often-brutal Israeli repression. But in the wake of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon and its siege of Beirut there were, as Hani Hassan put it, “two new factors of despair.”

The first was the realisation that Arafat’s policy of politics and compromise with Israel was getting the Palestinians nowhere.

The second, a bitter lesson for a new generation of Palestinians, was that they were on their own when the crunch came. The proof was the way the Arab regimes had sat on their backsides and watched for weeks as Sharon tried to finish the PLO in Beirut.

Against that backdrop it was inevitable that more and more Palestinians in the Occupied Territories would begin to see Islamic fundamentalism as the only force capable of changing the status quo. But what surprised and shocked Arafat and his leadership colleagues was the number of Palestinians who had moved or who were moving in the direction of the fundamentalists. Hani said: “We discovered that not less than 60 percent of our young people in the Occupied Territories were thinking that Islamic fundamentalism had more to offer than the PLO.”

The violent Islamic fundamentalism (Palestinian style) that Arafat and his leadership colleagues saw coming as the inevitable product of continuing Israeli occupation and the new wave of Palestinian resistance would be institutionalised in 1988, when Hamas was founded in Gaza by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, a paralysed, wheelchair-bound religious teacher. In Arabic Hamas means zeal. It is also an acronym for the Islamic Resistance Movement.

For Arafat the consequences of Islamic fundamentalists making the running in the Occupied Territories were terrifying. (As they ought to have been to rational Israelis). First there was the obvious danger that the PLO would become an irrelevance for a majority of Palestinians. But that was not the worst-case scenario. If there was a popular uprising, and if the Islamic fundamentalists could claim most of the credit for it, Arafat – even if the PLO did retain some credibility -might not be able to deliver the compromise that he had struggled for six years to sell to his people.

So what at the beginning of 1984 were Arafat and his leadership colleagues to do?

They knew they could not force the pace in the Occupied Territories and that a popular uprising would have to be spontaneous, generated from within; but they set about planning and putting into place the support networks and mechanisms that would sustain the explosion of despair – prevent Israeli’s military and other security services putting it down with speed – when it happened.

Soon after it started on 9 December 1987 the day-to-day management, direction and co-ordination of the first intifada was, in fact, taken over, as planned, by Abu Jihad, then Arafat’s deputy and most likely successor as well as commander of the PLO’s scattered and mission-less military forces.

But Arafat’s personal contribution to sustaining the uprising was significant. He had what he described to me as his “secret weapon”. From a British company (Racal-Tacticom in Reading) he had purchased some state-of-the-art, space-age radio equipment – a transmitter and scores of mini-receivers – which enabled him to plug into the Arab communications satellite (AbSat) and talk directly to Palestinian demonstrators on street corners when they were confronting the Israeli army.

Hani Hassan spoke about the impact of Arafat’s spiritual presence on the front lines in the Occupied Territories with great excitement. “You can’t imagine”, he told me. “The confrontations were very tough. Even when they were not being killed or seriously wounded (for throwing stones at Israel’s mighty warriors) our people were taking a lot of punishment. So naturally there were times when their morale was low.

And that’s when Arafat lifted their spirits. Somebody would produce a receiver to link the demonstrators to him in Tunis. The one who spoke directly with him was overcome with emotion and enthusiasm. He would proudly tell the others, ‘I’ve just talked to Abu Amar. He says we must continue.’”

It was, however, Abu Jihad’s oversight management and control, from the bedroom of his modest, whitewashed villa in Sidi Bou Said, a suburb to the north-east of Tunis, that prevented the Israelis from putting down the first intifada as quickly as they had assumed they could by collective punishments, arrests, torture and killing. That was why, on 16 April 1988, Israeli Special Forces went all the way to Tunis to assassinate Abu Jihad in his bedroom.

Though it was enclosed by a wall eight feet high, the villa occupied an exposed corner position at a road junction inside what many local people described as the “Forbidden Zone” because of its security status. The Tunisian president’s palace and the American Ambassador’s residence were almost within shouting distance of Abu Jihad’s villa. When he was looking for a family home he had been directed to the location by Tunisian officials. They told him there was no other place where his security could be guaranteed.

When the Israelis came ashore they were dressed as Tunisian security forces. They knew it was going to be an easy kill because Israeli agents had done a thorough reconnaissance job. They had discovered that Abu Jihad refused to surround himself with bodyguards of his own, in order to live as normal a life as possible with his childhood sweetheart and their children.

From Israel’s point of view Abu Jihad’s murder had the desired effect. Arafat was the man who inspired the Palestinian struggle, but Abu Jihad was the man who made it happen. Arafat was the man most respected by most Palestinians as the symbol of regenerated Palestinian nationalism, but Abu Jihad was the man the fighters and their families (the resistors of Israeli occupation) most admired. On an emotional as well as an organisational level, his murder was a huge setback for the resistance movement in the Occupied Territories.

When the first intifada started Israelis had a choice of two options. One was to continue living by the sword. The other was to say to themselves something like: “If we are not to find ourselves in a nightmare situation of our own making, we had better negotiate our way out of occupation.” There were rational Israelis who did say such things. But gut-Zionism prevailed. It was congenitally incapable of responding to the Palestinian cry for even a minimum of justice with anything but the iron fist. Greater Israel was to be strengthened and consolidated, not dismantled, even at the price of there being no peace, ever.

It was then that some of those who had done most to make a reality of Zionism’s mad dream did a most foolish thing. In the hope of weakening support for Arafat’s PLO in the Occupied Territories, they encouraged the growth of Hamas. The extent to which Israel assisted the development of Islamic fundamentalism (Palestinian style) is still a well kept secret.

In retrospect it can be said that if Israel had been willing to accept Arafat’s PLO as a negotiating partner in the mid to late 1980s, Hamas in particular, and Islamic fundamentalism in general, could not and would not have emerged as anunmanageable threat to anybody in the context of the struggle for Palestine. In that context the real recruiting sergeant of Islamic fundamentalism (Palestinian style) for resistance was Zionism’s arrogance of power and insufferable self-righteousness

Alan Hart has been engaged with events in the Middle East and their global consequences and terrifying implications – the possibility of a Clash of Civilisations, Judeo-Christian v Islamic, and, along the way, another great turning against the Jews – for nearly 40 years… Alan is author of “Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews” – http://www.alanhart.net

Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on Remembering Abu Jihad And Why, Really, The IsraHelis Killed Him

Russia warns West over involvement in Syrian opposition

NOVANEWS

 


Secretary of State Clinton said Wednesday that U.S. would push for a shakeup in the Syria opposition leadership so that it better represents fighters on the frontline.

Haaretz

A senior Russian diplomat on Friday warned the West against trying to predetermine a future leadership of Syria.

Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said on Twitter that such attempts would contradict the peace plan for Syria approved by world powers in Geneva in June.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that the administration would push for a shakeup in the Syria opposition leadership so that it better represents fighters on the frontline. Washington believes that a revamped rebel leadership could rally wider international support and prevent extremists from hijacking the rebellion.

“Attempts by Western sponsors of the Syrian opposition to enforce a list of he nation’s future leadership from the outside contradict the Geneva agreements,” Gatilov said. “The Geneva communique says that a transitional governing body should be formed on the basis of mutual accord of the government and the opposition.”

Russia has been the main supporter of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government, shielding it from UN sanctions over a crackdown on the 19-month uprising, in which at least 36,000 people have been killed, according to opposition activists.

Earlier this week, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reaffirmed Moscow’s rejection of calls for Assad’s ouster, saying that it would only exacerbate the conflict. He said that he and other Russian diplomats have urged Syrian opposition groups to name their representatives for talks with the government.

Russia in the past has hosted various members of the Syrian opposition and has not voiced a preference.

Posted in RussiaComments Off on Russia warns West over involvement in Syrian opposition

No matter who wins Tuesday’s election, U.S. likely to become entangled in Syria’s war

NOVANEWS

mcclatchydc.com

WASHINGTON — Despite Americans’ exhaustion with 11 years of foreign conflict, the victor in Tuesday’s presidential race may find it all but impossible to keep the United States from becoming more deeply entangled in the unfolding calamity of Syria’s sectarian civil war.

Pressure for Washington to play a greater role comes from a variety of factors: soaring casualty tolls, hundreds of thousands of refugees flooding into neighboring countries, wholesale destruction of Syria’s infrastructure, the growing presence of al Qaida-linked fighters, fears that violence will spill over into adjacent nations, and the danger that the Assad regime will collapse, leaving Syria’s chemical weapons open to theft.

“The longer this continues, the more sectarian violence is going to take place,” warned F. Stephen Larrabee, an analyst with the RAND Corp., a policy institute. “Sooner or later, the U.S. will arrive at a tipping point where it will have to decide if it will watch from the sidelines as the situation deteriorates or has to take some sort of action.”

Moreover, experts said, having committed themselves to Syrian President Bashar Assad’s ouster, President Barack Obama and Republican hopeful Mitt Romney would have to do more to make certain that goal is achieved. Otherwise, they risk appearing weak and feckless, leaving the U.S. little leverage to shape a post-Assad regime and less influence in the oil-rich region. Such an outcome also could embolden al Qaida and allied groups.

“Our Arab allies have shown some willingness and sensitivity toward the U.S. administration’s reluctance to get involved because of the election,” said Randa Slim of the Middle East Institute, a Washington-based research center. “But after the election, we will see the Gulf (Arab) allies increase pressure on the U.S. to do more. I think we will see the same from the Turks.”

Obama and Romney both have ruled out U.S. military intervention. So the next president will have limited options to contain the mayhem. Those could include more robust efforts to force feuding opposition leaders to agree on the makeup of an alternative government and to identify moderate rebels to whom to channel heavy weapons. The U.S. and Turkey also could deploy anti-aircraft batteries along Turkey’s side of the border to protect civilians and rebels across a swath of northern Syria in a “safe zone” that wouldn’t require U.N. approval, experts said.

Such a zone “is going to change the balance of power. The only way Assad can project power in northern Syria today is by bombing with airplanes and helicopters,” said Joshua Landis, a Syria expert at the University of Oklahoma. “If you take that out . . . then you are getting closer to a . . . situation where the rebels can set up camp and welcome (Syrian army) defectors in a safe environment. They could train and recruit.”

Such options also could end up sucking the U.S. even deeper into the maelstrom pitting rebels mostly from Syria’s Sunni Muslim majority – backed by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Islamists from across the region – against regime forces led by Assad’s Alawite minority, a Shiite Muslim offshoot, backed by Iran’s Shiite rulers and Hezbollah, the Shiite movement that dominates Lebanon’s government. The Shiite-led government of Iraq might also side with the Assad allies.

“The danger is that you have a wide chessboard and lots of moving pieces,” said a senior Arab diplomat who requested anonymity in order to speak freely. “The situation is very serious and fast-moving.”

The crisis could easily reach a point “where the downside risks of doing nothing begin to outweigh the risks of doing something,” Larrabee said.

A re-elected President Obama could develop a new strategy faster than a newly elected Romney, who’d need months to seat his full national security team and conduct a policy review, the senior Arab diplomat noted.

Neither Obama nor Romney has spent much time during the campaign discussing the bloodiest of the Arab uprisings that have upended the Middle East. But both largely espouse the same approach: oust Assad and stop Syria from becoming an Islamist haven by using the CIA to steer Saudi- and Qatari-supplied arms to moderate rebels while trying to unify disparate opposition leaders with the credibility to be a government-in-waiting that would participate in a U.N.-led peace effort.

Obama has sent a U.S. military taskforce to Jordan’s border with Syria to help Jordan forge contingency plans in case of a spillover of serious violence, and he has slapped sanctions on the regime to strangle its arms buying. The United States also has provided more than $132 million for assistance to hundreds of thousands of refugees – estimates place the number between 360,000 and perhaps 700,000 – outside Syria and the millions of people – somewhere between 1 million and 10 million – who’ve been forced from their homes by the fighting and are now scrambling to find food, shelter and medical care.

The U.S., however, has rejected calls to impose a no-fly zone to ground Assad’s airpower and refuses to supply heavy weapons, including shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, to the rebels, fearing the weapons would end up in the hands of al Qaida-linked Islamists.

The bloodletting – estimates of the dead are nearing 40,000 and may be much higher – also is having a corrosive effect on U.S. relations in the region, experts said. Both Turkey and its Arab allies, frustrated by what they consider a standoffish U.S. role, are outrunning current policy.

“The U.S. has lost a lot of leverage and it’s coming into this particular game too late,” said Ammar Abdulhamid, a Syrian dissident and fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a center-right policy institute in Washington.

Still, he and other experts said, the U.S. can’t stop exploring its options, especially with the war heating up sectarian tensions in Lebanon, where there have been gunfights between Alawites and Sunnis and an Oct. 19 car-bomb assassination in Beirut of a senior Sunni police official that many blamed on Syria and Hezbollah.

The war also is infecting Iraq, threatening to upend the tenuous stability that the U.S. fought for nine years to secure. Iraqi Sunni militants are siding with Syrian rebels, Shiite extremists are fighting for Assad, and the Shiite-run Baghdad government is reportedly allowing Iran to send arms to Damascus across its territory and airspace, stoking frictions with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab regimes.

Turkey, meanwhile, has made clear that it won’t tolerate Syria’s minority Kurds setting up an independent enclave in northeast Syria that is run by the Syrian wing of Turkey’s Kurdish rebels and that could enflame Kurdish separatism in Iraq and Iran. In recent days, Syrian Kurdish militia have clashed openly with anti-Assad rebels near Aleppo.

“There are no good choices in Syria,” said Landis of the University of Oklahoma. “It’s a minefield. Whoever is president after Nov. 6 is going to have to tiptoe through this minefield. We have to take this one step at a time and figure out who is who on the ground.”

The senior Arab diplomat said the most dangerous threat demanding greater U.S. attention is the possibility of a precipitous collapse of Assad’s rule that could see his army disintegrate. That would leave the country’s stockpiles of sarin, VX and other chemical weapons open to theft by al Qaida-linked militants, who could use them against the U.S. or its allies, or Iran-backed Hezbollah, which could use them against Israel.

“The chemical weapons threat is much more on your doorstep than anything else,” he said. “If Hezbollah gets its hands on these chemical weapons, it will be much more of a threat to Israel than the Iranian nuclear program.”

U.S. officials say they are closely monitoring those stockpiles, and Obama has warned Assad that he will face U.S. military intervention if he uses them or moves them. Yet how Washington would prevent the weapons from falling into the wrong hands should the regime implode remains unclear.

The Obama administration is now preparing a post-election effort to build a credible Syrian opposition leadership. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday made clear that the U.S. no longer considers the Syrian National Council, which is comprised primarily of exiles, as the primary anti-Assad umbrella group and instead is promoting the formation of an interim government that includes “those who are in the frontlines fighting and dying today.”

But the initiative has already run into trouble, with Syria National Council members furious at being shunted aside by an administration they think has done too little to help topple Assad. The administration’s move is certain to color a Syrian opposition meeting to be held in Qatar next week.

“I believe America does not want to do anything, but to allow Bashar Assad to destroy Syria,” said Haythem al-Maleh, a former judge and political activist. “Only in Syria can the army kill people without any limit, with people of the world just looking on.”

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/11/01/173373/no-matter-who-wins-tuesdays-election.html#storylink=cpy

Posted in USA, SyriaComments Off on No matter who wins Tuesday’s election, U.S. likely to become entangled in Syria’s war

Obama administration works to launch new Syrian opposition council

NOVANEWS

thecable.foreignpolicy.com

Syrian opposition leaders of all stripes will convene in Qatar next week to form a new leadership body to subsume the opposition Syrian National Council, which is widely viewed as ineffective, consumed by infighting, and little respected on the ground, The Cable has learned.

The State Department has been heavily involved in crafting the new council as part of its effort oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assadand build a more viable and unified opposition. In September, for instance, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with a group of Syrian activists who were flown in to New York for a high-level meeting that has not been reported until now.

During the third and final presidential debate, Republican nomineeMitt Romney criticized President Barack Obama’s Syria policy as a failure to show “leadership” in laying the groundwork for the post-Assad era and called for “a form of council that can take the lead in Syria.”

In fact, over the last several months, according to U.S. officials and Syrian opposition figures, the State Department has worked to broaden its contacts inside the country, meeting with military commanders and representatives of local governance councils in a bid to bypass the fractious SNC.

Many in the SNC are accordingly frustrated with the level of support they’ve gotten in Washington. “The Obama administration is trying to systematically undermine the SNC. It’s very unfortunate,” one SNC leader said told The Cable.

But U.S. officials are equally frustrated with an SNC they say has failed to attract broad support, particularly from the Alawite and Kurdish minorities. The new council is an attempt to change that dynamic. Dozens of Syrian leaders will meet in the Qatari capital, Doha, on Nov. 3 and hope to announce the new council as the legitimate representative of all the major Syrian opposition factions on Nov. 7, one day after the U.S. presidential election.

The Obama administration sees the new council as a potential interim government that could negotiate with both the international community and – down the line – perhaps also the Syrian regime. The SNC will have a minority stake in the new body, but some opposition leaders are still skeptical that the effort will succeed.

The Qatar meeting will include dozens of opposition leaders from inside Syria, including from the provincial revolutionary councils, the local “coordination committees” of activists, and select people from the newly established local administrative councils.

“We call it a proto-parliament. One could also think of it as a continental congress,” a senior administration official told The Cable.

U.S. officials and opposition leaders are calling the initiative the “Riad Seif plan,” named after the former Syrian parliamentarian and dissident who was imprisoned after he signed the Damascus Declaration on respect for Syrians’ human rights in 2005. He was released in 2011, beaten up by a Shabiha gang in Noember 2011, and finally allowed to leave Syria in June 2012.

Seif is central to the formation of the new council and is seen as a figure with broad credibility with both the internal and external Syrian opposition.

“We have to get [the internal opposition] to bless the new political leadership structure they’re setting up and not only do we have to get them to bless the structure, but they have to get the names on it,” the official said, noting that the exact structure of the council will be determined in Qatar, not before.

“We need to be clear: This is what the Americans support, and if you want to work with us you are going to work with this plan and you’re going to do this now,” the official said. “We aren’t going to waste anymore time. The situation is worsening. We need to do this now.”

Secretary Clinton’s personal involvement came when she met with select members of the 80-member “Friends of Syria” group in New York, which included internal opposition figures and several foreign ministers from the Friends of Syria “core group” of 22 countries.

“The New York meeting was designed to tee up the idea that there has to be a new political structure, not just the SNC,” the official said.

Two SNC leaders attended the meeting along with four representatives of the internal opposition, although only one such leader actually came from inside Syria. Of the other three, one traveled from Sweden, one from Jordan, and one from Kuwait. They all spoke briefly and then left the room while the foreign ministers discussed the road ahead.

“We wanted more [from inside Syria] but we couldn’t get them out. The other people were chosen by people from the inside,” the official said.

Even bringing that individual from within Syria proved to be a major undertaking, however, because he didn’t have a passport. It took high-level intervention between the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security. The Syrian caught his flight to New York for the meeting — but only at the last minute.

The U.S. government will be represented at the Nov. 7 Qatar meeting by Ambassador to SyriaRobert Ford, who has been dealing with various opposition groups and weighing in on the composition of the new council, a senior administration official said. For example, Ford pressed for the council to have 50 members in order to include 20 representatives of the internal opposition alongside 15 members of the SNC and 15 other representatives of various Syrian opposition organizations.

The idea is also to create an eight- to 10-member executive body — made up of technocrats who are not on the new council — that would be able to work directly with foreign governments on a day-to-day basis on practical items such as the delivery and direction of humanitarian assistance.

“We could finally have an interface to say ‘The needs of this place are greater than the needs of people in that place, so please direct assistance here or there,’” the official said.

 

The U.S. government is coordinating with governments in Europe and the region to forge consensus on the way ahead with the political opposition inside Syria and outside, the official added.

The Turkish government has been wary of the new effort because it has been heavily invested in the SNC, and the new council intentionally puts the SNC in a minority position.

But Washington’s relationship with the SNC has been deteriorating for several months, officials said, and the administration believes the Turks will ultimately come around to embrace the new body.

The mutual recriminations between the Obama administration and the SNC reached a tipping point over the late spring and summer, when two official visits by the SNC to Washington were canceled, one in May and one in July. The May meeting was canceled by the U.S. side because the administration wanted the SNC to visit Moscow first — a visit that didn’t go well, the official said. The July meeting was scuttled by the SNC itself.

But the SNC isn’t going away. The group’s leaders will hold their own meeting in Qatar on Nov. 3 to establish a new 15-member executive council and potentially a new president.

Other Syrian activists warn that the new council is far from a sure thing.

One external opposition activist with ties to military leaders inside Syria told The Cable there’s a risk the Doha meeting could be only the latest example of the opposition’s failure to coalesce around a common vision and plan for a post-Assad Syria.

“Right now, the opposition groups are very vague and there’s no agreement on who’s representing who and what and where,” this opposition activist said. “Right now there is a lot of risk that this will be another failed approach that will not achieve anything.”

But the Obama administration’s efforts go beyond the attempt to stand up the new council.

Although members of Ford’s staff have been in communication with representatives of the opposition Free Syrian Army for some time, in July, Ford made his first in-person contact with the FSA during a visit to Cairo. A special conference call was arranged earlier this month between Ford and several FSA commanders, the official confirmed.

The Obama administration is well aware of the growing influence of opposition military commanders and the effort by Islamist extremists, including groups linked to al Qaeda, to gain influence over the direction of Syria’s burgeoning civil war.

“There’s a rising presence of Islamist extremists. So we need to help these [military council leaders], the majority of them are secular, relatively moderate, and not pursuing an overly vicious agenda,” the official said.

But the Obama administration remains reluctant to directly provide weapons to the FSA and has all but ruled out committing U.S. military assets to the fight, despite the hopes of many Syrian opposition figures that the Nov. 6 election will mark an inflection point.

“We are providing to the political opposition all kinds of assistance and we’re going to ramp that up, as the secretary has said,” the official said. “I don’t think there’s going to be a big change after the election.”

Posted in USAComments Off on Obama administration works to launch new Syrian opposition council

In Defence of UN Palestine

NOVANEWS

By:Rapporteur Richard Falk

Richard FalkBy Lawrence Davidson

Richard Falk is the present United Nations special rapporteur for the Palestinian territories. His job is to monitor the human rights situation in the territories, with particular reference to international law, and report back to both the United Nations General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council. He is Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and well qualified for his UN post.

Telling unsettling truths

Professor Falk was appointed in 2008 to a six year term in his present position. That means he has been telling the unsettling truth about Israeli behaviour for four years now, with another two to go. Repeatedly, he has documented Israeli violations of international law and its relentless disregard for Palestinian human rights. For instance:

  • In 2008 he documented the “desperate plight of civilians in Gaza”;
  • In 2009 he described Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip as a “war crime of the greatest magnitude”;
  • In 2010 he documented Israel’s array of apartheid policies;
  • In 2011 he documented Israeli policies in Jerusalem and labelled them “ethnic cleansing”; and
  • In this latest report for the year 2012, he has concentrated on two subjects:

– Israel’s treatment of Palestinian prisoners which, he concludes, is so bad as to warrant investigation by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). It should be noted that Israel does not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICJ. However, condemnation by this organization would, within the context of growing awareness of Zionist crimes, help further educate public opinion.

– Falk documents the assistance given to Israel’s expansion of colonies on the Palestinian West Bank by a number of multinational corporations, including Motorola, Hewlett-Packard and Caterpillar Inc. This assistance may be profitable, but it is also manifestly illegal. The chief executives and board members of these companies stand in violation of international laws, including provisions of the Geneva Conventions. Since no nation, nor the UN itself, seems ready to prosecute them, Professor Falk has recommended a boycott of the guilty firms “in an effort to take infractions of international law seriously”.

Reactions

In a sane world this work would make Richard Falk a universally acclaimed defender of justice. But ours is not a sane world. And so you get the following sort of responses from both Israel and its supporters:

Karaen Peretz, the spokeswomen for the Israeli Mission at the United Nations, found Professor Falk’s latest report “grossly biased”. This is a sort of response used by someone who cannot dispute the evidence and so must resort to attacking the character of the one presenting the evidence. Peretz also asserted that “Israel is deeply committed to advancing human rights and firmly believes that this cause will be better served without Falk and his distasteful sideshow. While he spends pages attacking Israel, Falk fails to mention even once the horrific human rights violations and ongoing terrorist attacks by Hamas.”

Actually, this is not true. Back in 2008 Falk requested that his mandate from the UN Human Rights Council be extended to cover infringements of human rights by Palestinian governments just so he would not be seen as partisan. Subsequently, Mahmoud Abbas’s pseudo Palestinian Authority called for Falk’s resignation. In this job, you just can’t win.

In any case, Falk’s documenting of Israel’s crimes puts the lie to Peretz’s claim that Israel is “deeply committed to advancing human rights” and that documentation cannot be dismissed as a “sideshow”. Relative to 64 years of ethnic cleansing, it is the militarily insignificant missiles out of Gaza that are the “sideshow”. And, can we honestly assume that Ms Peretz’s attitude towards Professor Falk would turn for the better if in this report he had mentioned Hamas “even once”?

Then there is United States Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice. She echoed Peretz by describing Falk as being “highly biased”. Well, what sort of attitude is one suppose to have toward overwhelming evidence persisting over many years? Isn’t one supposed to be “biased” in favour of such evidence? To ignore it doesn’t make you balanced or fair. It makes you either corrupt or in a deep state of denial.

Ms Rice goes on to say that “Mr Falk’s recommendations do nothing to further a peaceful settlement … and indeed poison the environment for peace”. These are pretty strong words, but if considered critically they make little sense.

First of all, Falk’s mandate requires him to reveal the facts about human rights violations in the Palestinian territories. It makes no reference to “furthering a peaceful settlement”. That is what the US government claims to be doing. And its record in this regard is pitiful.

Second, just why should conclusively documenting practices that may well be standing in the way of a settlement, be equated with “poisoning the environment for peace”? That doesn’t add up at all.

There are many other spokespeople who have reacted negatively to Falk’s latest report, ranging from the Canada’s foreign affairs minister to representatives of the companies caught on the wrong side of the law. And, remarkably, they all sing the same song: Falk is biased, ad nauseum. They can do no better because they cannot refute the professor”s evidence. Thus, all of these well positioned, well paid representatives of nations and multinational businesses are reduced to sounding like lawyers defending the mafia.

Conclusion

Professor Falk’s experience should serve as a warning to both those who would, on the one hand, make a career out of being a spokespersons for governments or companies, and on the other, those who would dedicate themselves to “speaking truth to power”. Taking on the role of the former is the equivalent of selling your soul to leadership whose sense of right and wrong goes no further than their own local interests. Taking on the role of the latter is to face seemingly endless frustration for, as Noam Chomsky once noted, power already knows the truth and doesn’t care one jot for it.

Yet, for those who would travel down this latter road, Richard Falk is as good a role model as can be found. Having dedicated himself to the role of truth teller he is to be commended for his devotion to justice and sheer durability. He is a hero who, hopefully, will have his praises sung long after Ms Peretz and Ms Rice are deservedly forgotten.

Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on In Defence of UN Palestine

Libya on the edge of a precipice

NOVANEWS
LIBYA-POLITICS-UNREST-MILITIAS

Time for an international peacekeeping force

By Nureddin Sabir
Editor, Redress Information & Analysis

Another day and more bad news from Libya. This morning the Reuters news agency reported that a gun battle was raging between two rival militias around a security headquarters building in the Libyan capital, Tripoli. At least five people were wounded in the clash.

According to Reuters, residents in the south Tripoli district of Sidi Khalifa said the fight erupted just after midnight on 3/4 November when two militia units authorized by the official Supreme Security Committee got into an argument over a detained member of one of the militias.

We have real patients with real needs. These rogue militias need to leave us in peace so we can do our jobs. (Khalid Bin Nur, doctor at Tripoli hospital)

“We called the police early in the morning to help us stop the shooting, but no one came,” a resident said.

A bullet shot through the nearby Tripoli Central Hospital, causing doctors and nurses to run for cover. One doctor, Khalid Bin Nur, said that five casualties from the fighting had been brought in, adding: “We have real patients with real needs. These rogue militias need to leave us in peace so we can do our jobs.”

Meanwhile, in Libya’s second city, Benghazi, and cradle of the revolution that toppled the tyrant Muammar Gaddafi, a car exploded outside a police station, wounding four police officers.

According to the French news agency AFP, two unknown assailants drove past the station and lobbed a bomb under one of the police vehicles parked outside. The blast occurred before dawn, destroying the entrance of the building, unhinging a door and shattering windows, an AFP photographer said.

This kind of gangsterism has become the norm in Libya. Almost everyday incidents similar to the ones described above take place across the country.

It may be foolhardy to predict anything in a situation such as that prevailing in Libya, where the main actors are wild and irrational, but I am prepared to predict that the violence and anarchy will not only continue but will get much worse. Unless it is checked as a matter of urgency, it will reach a point where it will no longer be possible to contain and extinguish it.

…to those who understand Libyans and the Libyan psyche well, the prospect of a complete breakdown of society is a real one.

There are plenty of countries where lawlessness has been allowed to escalate beyond control. Somalia and the DR Congo come to mind. Libya is not there yet and, to media correspondents, diplomats and other outsiders temporarily visiting the country, comparing it to Somalia and DR Congo may seem far fetched. But to those who understand Libyans and the Libyan psyche well, the prospect of a complete breakdown of society is a real one.

The fact that Libyans have managed to get rid of the Gaddafi tyranny is no small achievement. Years of repression, betrayal and frustration finally boiled over on 17 February 2011 when, encouraged by the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, Libyans finally overcame their fear and began the fight that eventually resulted in the overthrow of the Gaddafi family.

However, this was all done in a characteristically chaotic Libyan way. Foreigners got a glimpse of the chaos on their TV screens – the to’ing and fro’ing of men in pickup trucks and the imbecilic firing into the air by fighters short of ammunition – but the reality on the ground was much, much worse. As I have said previously, Libyan society is chronically backward, with no political culture, civil society institutions or history of tolerance or political participation, and this state of backwardness was put in a deep freeze for the 42 years of Gaddafi’s reign. It will take time to move on but, in the meantime, with the country flooded with weapons and up to 1,700 militias wreaking havoc and lawlessness, it is time to take drastic action.

Libya is now Mad Max country and the Libyan people will take many years – perhaps generations – to recover from the years of stagnation under Gaddafi. But as matters stand right now, we need help and we need it urgently.

As a Libyan, I am sad to say that my compatriots cannot organize a piss-up in a brewery, to use an English colloquialism. But we are now on the edge of a precipice and dire situations call for drastic solutions.

Libyans have never had an opportunity to learn how to organize themselves and this has left its mark on the psyche of virtually every Libyan. I am reminded of an incident in the mid-1970s when Gaddafi sent two secret service agents to murder an opposition figure who had taken refuge in Egypt. The agents managed to find Cairo but instead of tracking their target decided to make their way to a bar, got drunk, started shouting Allahu akbar (God is the greatest) while inebriated and discharged their pistols into the bar’s ceiling, upon which they were disarmed and arrested.

As a Libyan, I am sad to say that my compatriots cannot organize a piss-up in a brewery, to use an English colloquialism. But we are now on the edge of a precipice and dire situations call for drastic solutions.

Libya will continue its inexorable descent into chaos and violence, unless the international community – the Arab League, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the United Nations or even the devil himself, it no longer matters – acknowledge our lamentable reality and dispatch a sizable peacekeeping force to establish law and order, disarm the militias – by force if necessary – and give the nascent Libyan authorities a chance to grow up, look in the mirror and live up to their responsibilities.

The post-Gaddafi Libyan authorities, from the National Transitional Council to the recently formed government of Prime Minister Ali Zidan, have a uniquely idiotic security concept: building an army composed of a coalition of “approved militias”. This will not work. WIth 1,700 militias plaguing the country and respecting no one, it is a recipe for endemic violence and a complete breakdown of society.

If Libya is to survive as a state, then steps must be taken right now to mobilize an international peacekeeping force and authorize it to intervene to disarm the militias, bring about security and train an army and police force.

When Gaddafi came to power in 1969, he inherited from the monarchy a small but fairly well trained army and a respectable, professional police force. His was a bloodlesscoup d’état, not a revolution, and he was able to govern the country using the security apparatuses of the regime he overthrew. But from the 1980s he set about dismantling the armed forces, which were replaced by “security brigades” – praetorian guards of mercenaries – and demoralizing the civilian police, who were disempowered and critically undermined by the armed thugs of the “Revolutionary” Committees. Then came the revolution of 17 February 2011, which eventually resulted in the destruction of the praetorian brigades and the disappearance of most of what was left of the police, which collapsed along with other state structures.

If Libya is to survive as a state, then steps must be taken right now to mobilize an international peacekeeping force and authorize it to intervene to disarm the militias, bring about security and train an army and police force. It is better to bite the bullet, swallow our pride as Libyans and do this now before it is too late.

I realize that by calling for this I will bring upon myself the wrath of the faux leftists and many of my compatriots alike. This does not worry me. I am a patriot and a pan-Arab nationalist. I would not be advocating such a radical course of action if I did not sincerely believe that the alternative is my country’s self-destruction.

Posted in LibyaComments Off on Libya on the edge of a precipice

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

November 2012
M T W T F S S
« Oct   Dec »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930