Monthly Archives: August 2011

Misrata rebels defy Libya’s new regime

The Guardian reports:

The first cracks in Libya’s rebel coalition have opened, with protests erupting in Misrata against the reported decision of the National Transitional Council (NTC) to appoint a former Gaddafi henchman as security boss of Tripoli.

Media reports said the NTC prime minister, Mahmoud Jibril, is poised to appoint Albarrani Shkal, a former army general, as the capital’s head of security.

Protests erupted in the early hours of the morning in Misrata’s Martyr’s Square, with about 500 protesters shouting that the “blood of the martyrs” would be betrayed by the appointment.

Misrata’s ruling council lodged a formal protest with the NTC, saying that if the appointment were confirmed Misratan rebel units deployed on security duties in Tripoli would refuse to follow NTC orders.

Misratans blame Shkal for commanding units that battered their way into this city in the spring, terrorising and murdering civilians.

NTC sources say Shkal, formerly a key confidant of Muammar Gaddafi, turned rebel informer in May, passing valuable information back to the rebel capital, Benghazi.

But Misratans believe that prior to that, he was operations officer for the 32nd brigade, whose overall commander is Gaddafi’s son Khamis.

The brigade took the leading role in a siege that saw tanks and artillery bombard residential areas of the city, murdering several hundred civilians.

Facebooktwittermail

Libya: Evidence suggests Khamis Brigade killed 45 detainees

Members of the Khamis Brigade, a powerful Gaddafi military force run by Muammar Gaddafi’s son Khamis, appear to have summarily executed detainees in a warehouse near Tripoli on August 23, 2011, Human Rights Watch said today. Within three days the same warehouse was set on fire but the cause is unknown, Human Rights Watch said.

Human Rights Watch inspected the charred skeletal remains of approximately 45 bodies, still smoldering, on August 27. The remains were spread throughout a warehouse in the Khalida Ferjan neighborhood in Salahaddin, south of Tripoli, adjoining the Yarmouk Military Base. At least two additional corpses were seen lying outside, unburned.

“Sadly this is not the first gruesome report of what appears to be the summary execution of detainees in the final days of the Gaddafi government’s control of Tripoli,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “These merciless murders took place in the midst of Ramadan and those responsible should be brought to justice and punished.”

Facebooktwittermail

Gaddafi wanted to be Libya’s only hero

Luke Harding visits Tripoli’s museum, now guarded by two friendly rebels, Naiem and Islam.

Naiem told me how he and other locals liberated the museum on Sunday 21 August – the day the rebels surged into western Tripoli, and a popular insurrection erupted inside it. The Gaddafi soldiers were armed; the locals had no weapons other than a small harpoon used for fishing trips. “Gaddafi was mad. He had hid soldiers in hospitals, museums and schools,” Naiem said. “They left their clothes here and ran away.”

Not all escaped: the rebels captured two of Gaddafi’s soldiers trying to flee. One, Naiem said, admitted he genuinely liked Gaddafi. The other, however, explained that his officers had told him he wasn’t fighting fellow Libyans but was going to war against France, Britain and Nato. “He didn’t know the truth,” Islam said. Both soldiers were now in a rebel prison, their fate unclear in a city without a justice system.

In a room devoted to Sabratha – Libya’s other stunning Roman city – I found a bust of Marcus Aurelius. He had been taken out of his niche and propped carefully against a wall. Nearby was a female bust from a Roman necropolis, her expression dignified and mournful. I discovered more soldiers’ mattresses in a room of Neolithic grinding stones and panels of early Saharan rock art – their primitive strokes recognisable as palm trees.

Upstairs, an entire room had been devoted to the Green Book, Gaddafi’s balmy political treatise. The inscription in English was, predictably, glowing in its praise of Libya’s mysterious and vanished leader. The “charming” Gaddafi led an audacious coup against the “medieval monarchy” of King Idris, it said, and took the bold step in 1973 of nationalising Libya’s oil industry. Gaddafi’s Third Universal Theory was a philosophy superior to both western capitalism and Soviet communism, I learned.

The most intriguing discovery lay in the basement. Here, I found exhibits from the pre-Gaddafi era, carefully stored away, as well as King Idris’s palace furniture, smelling strongly of mothballs. There was a gilded Buddha, water pitchers, and a series of framed prints — a 19th-century French lithograph of the Bosporus, and portraits of Libyan nationalists who fought a century ago against Italian colonial rule. All had been hidden. “We have many heroes in Libya. But Gaddafi wanted to be the only one,” Naiem observed.

Facebooktwittermail

US-Taliban talks were making headway

The Associated Press reports:

Direct U.S. talks with the Taliban had evolved to a substantive negotiation before Afghan officials, nervous that the secret and independent talks would undercut President Hamid Karzai, scuttled them, Afghan and U.S. officials told The Associated Press.

Featured prominently in the talks was the whereabouts and eventual release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl of Hailey, Idaho, who was captured more than two years ago in eastern Afghanistan, according to a senior Western diplomat in the region and a childhood friend of the Taliban negotiator, Tayyab Aga.

The U.S. negotiators asked Aga what could be done to gain Bergdahl’s release. The discussion did not get into specifics but Aga discussed the release of Afghan prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and in Afghanistan at Bagram Air Field.

Published reports about the clandestine meetings ended the talks abruptly, and sent Aga into hiding.

Collapse of the direct talks between Aga and U.S. officials probably spoiled the best chance yet at reaching Mullah Mohammed Omar, considered the linchpin to ending the Taliban fight against the U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan. The contacts were preliminary but had begun to bear fruit, Afghan and U.S. officials said.

Perhaps most importantly they offered the tantalizing prospect of a brokered agreement between the U.S. and the Taliban — one that would allow the larger reconciliation of the Taliban into Afghanistan political life to move forward. The United States has not committed to any such deal, but the Taliban wants security assurances from Washington.

Facebooktwittermail

The myth of terrorism

The power of language cannot be overstated. Nowhere is this more evident than in the power embedded in the word terrorism — a word which has governed political thought for much of the last decade.

Political acts of violence are older than humanity. Among chimpanzees, for instance, the contest for social power can sometimes be deadly. The killing of an alpha male by socially related chimps is a political act of violence for the purpose of realigning the social order, yet no one would be silly enough to suggest that chimpanzees face a threat from terrorism (even if chimps can indeed terrorize their companions!).

Political acts of violence is a phrase and not a word because it refers to a very broad collection of events that cannot neatly and meaningfully be circumscribed and turned into a thing. Such acts are as diverse in their reasons as they are in their distribution.

But give this amorphous entity a name, terrorism, and suddenly it becomes homogenous. One act of terrorism can be linked to another because they are both, supposedly, the same thing — both performed by the same people: terrorists. The idea that terrorists all share common attributes then reinforces the idea that wherever terrorism takes place we should be united in our response.

Whether it’s an attack in New York or Tel Aviv, Moscow or Mumbai, united we must stand in facing this terrible threat. Political analysis can conveniently be tossed out of the window once we have submitted to the demand that security preempts all other concerns.

Larry Derfner, who until today was a columnist for the rightwing Jerusalem Post, wrote a piece a few days ago in which he made a fine attempt to deconstruct the Israeli myth of Palestinian terrorism, but he made a few mistakes.

Israelis who don’t regard the Irgun and Lehi armed resistance to British rule as terrorism, are in no position to apply the same label to Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation. But what Derfner says in this regard in his column, is: “If those who oppose the occupation acknowledged publicly that it justifies Palestinian terrorism, then those who support the occupation would have to explain why it doesn’t. And that’s not easy for a nation that sanctifies the right to self-defense; a nation that elected Irgun leader Menachem Begin and Lehi leader Yitzhak Shamir as prime minister.”

The problem with phrasing his argument this way is that the almost universally accepted dogma these days is that there is no form of terrorism — whether practiced by Palestinians or anyone else — that is justifiable. Not even opponents of the occupation say terrorism is justifiable. On the other hand, what many will acknowledge is that Palestinians, like anyone else living under military occupation, have the right to engage in armed resistance.

Ironically, what inspired Derfner to make his argument was a series of attacks in southern Israel, near Eilat, carried out by gunmen whose identities are in dispute. Some of them have been reported to be Egyptian and not a single Palestinian has been named.

The attacks perfectly illustrate the way in which the label “terrorism” is used to silence those who dare to question the official version of events. But when we don’t actually know who the gunmen were, we can hardly pretend to understand their motives.

If, as many of us suspect, they were salafist militants based in the Sinai whose goal is to establish an Islamic emirate in the largely ungoverned region, their reasons for attacking Israelis might be quite different from those of a Palestinian militant group. At the same time, even if they were Palestinians, we can’t take it as a given that their attack was conceived as yet another strike in the fight against the occupation.

Call a bloody act of political violence an act of terrorism, however, and those of us who insist that we can’t understand what happened if we don’t know who was involved or what motivated them — we will be dismissed as apologists of terrorism or even terrorist sympathizers. Others, buoyed up by their own self-righteousness, anger and indignation will declare that terrorism must be vigorously condemned and tirelessly fought — as though governments are the sole arbiters of the legitimacy of political violence.

Here’s the column blog post, “The awful, necessary truth about Palestinian terror,” that got Derfner fired:

I think a lot of people who realize that the occupation is wrong also realize that the Palestinians have the right to resist it – to use violence against Israelis, even to kill Israelis, especially when Israel is showing zero willingness to end the occupation, which has been the case since the Netanyahu government took over (among other times in the past).

But people don’t want to say this, especially right after a terror attack like this last one that killed eight Israelis near Eilat. And there are lots of good reasons for this reticence, such as: You don’t want to further upset your own countrymen when they are grieving, you don’t want to say or write anything that could be picked up by Israel’s enemies and used as justification for killing more of us. (These are good reasons; fear of being called a traitor, for instance, is a bad reason.)

But I think it’s time to overcome this reticence, even at the cost of enflaming the already enflamed sensitivities of the Israeli public, because this unwillingness to say outright that Palestinians have the right to fight the occupation, especially now, inadvertently helps keep the occupation going.

When we say that the occupation is a terrible injustice to the Palestinians, but then say that Palestinian terror/resistance is a terrible injustice to Israel, we’re saying something that’s patently illogical to anyone but a pacifist, and there aren’t many pacifists left, certainly not in Israel. The logical, non-pacifist mind concludes that both of those statements can’t be true – that if A is hurting B and won’t stop, then B damn sure has the right to hurt A to try to make him stop. But if everybody, not only the Right but the Left, too, is saying that B, the Palestinians, don’t have the right to hurt A, the Israelis, then the logical mind concludes that Israel must not be hurting the Palestinians after all, the occupation must not be so bad, the occupation must not be hurting the Palestinians at all – because if it was, they would have the right to hurt us back, and everybody agrees that they don’t. So when they shoot at us or fire rockets at us, it’s completely unprovoked, which gives us the right, the duty, to bash them and bash them until they stop – and anybody who tries to deny us that right doesn’t have a leg to stand on, so we’re just going to keep right on bashing them. And when the Palestinians complain about the occupation, we Israelis can honestly say we don’t know what they’re talking about.

This, I’m convinced, is how the Left’s ritual condemnations of terror are translated in the Israeli public’s mind – as justification for the occupation and an iron-fist military policy.

But if, on the other hand, we were to say very forthrightly what many of us believe and the rest of us suspect – that the Palestinians, like every nation living under hostile rule, have the right to fight back, that their terrorism, especially in the face of a rejectionist Israeli government, is justified – what effect would that have? A powerful one, I think, because the truth is powerful. If those who oppose the occupation acknowledged publicly that it justifies Palestinian terrorism, then those who support the occupation would have to explain why it doesn’t. And that’s not easy for a nation that sanctifies the right to self-defense; a nation that elected Irgun leader Menachem Begin and Lehi leader Yitzhak Shamir as prime minister.

But while I think the Palestinians have the right to use terrorism against us, I don’t want them to use it, I don’t want to see Israelis killed, and as an Israeli, I would do whatever was necessary to stop a Palestinian, oppressed or not, from killing one of my countrymen. (I also think Palestinian terrorism backfires, it turns people away from them and generates sympathy for Israel and the occupation, so I’m against terrorism on a practical level, too, but that’s besides the point.) The possibility that Israel’s enemies could use my or anybody else’s justification of terror for their campaign is a daunting one; I wouldn’t like to see this column quoted on a pro-Hamas website, and I realize it could happen.

Still, I don’t think Hamas and their allies need any more encouragement, so whatever encouragement they might take from me or any other liberal Zionist is coals to Newcastle. What’s needed very badly, however, is for Israelis to realize that the occupation is hurting the Palestinians terribly, that it’s driving them to try to kill us, that we are compelling them to engage in terrorism, that the blood of Israeli victims is ultimately on our hands, and that it’s up to us to stop provoking our own people’s murder by ending the occupation. And so long as we who oppose the occupation keep pretending that the Palestinians don’t have the right to resist it, we tacitly encourage Israelis to go on blindly killing and dying in defense of an unholy cause.

And by tacitly encouraging Israelis in their blindness, I think we endanger their lives and ours, their country and ours, much more than if we told the truth and got quoted on Hamas websites.

There’s no time for equivocation anymore, if there ever was. The mental and moral paralysis in this country must be broken. Whoever the Palestinians were who killed the eight Israelis near Eilat last week, however vile their ideology was, they were justified to attack. They had the same right to fight for their freedom as any other unfree nation in history ever had. And just like every harsh, unjust government in history bears the blame for the deaths of its own people at the hands of rebels, so Israel, which rules the Palestinians harshly and unjustly, is to blame for those eight Israeli deaths – as well as for every other Israeli death that occurred when this country was offering the Palestinians no other way to freedom.

Writing this is not treason. It is an attempt at patriotism.

Facebooktwittermail

How the NYPD, with the CIA’s help, became one of the country’s most aggressive domestic intelligence agencies

Mark LeVine writes:

Only two weeks before the 10th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Associated Press has broken a story that reminds us of just how much America has changed during the last decade, and how the government – and as important, some of the country’s most powerful corporations – routinely intrude into the lives of communities and individuals in a manner that would few would have thought imaginable the day before the planes struck the World Trade Center.

After a lengthy investigation, the Associated Press has published a story detailing a highly secretive decade-long relationship between the CIA and the New York Police Department (NYPD), in which the two agencies have worked together in “a massive covert programme to monitor the Muslim communities” living in the New York metropolitan area and surrounding regions.

The program is troubling for a host of reasons. It involves potentially serious violations of federal law, including First Amendment protections. Morever, it bears a strong resemblance to programs launched during the Civil Rights and Vietnam era, which saw techniques, technologies and even personnel from the US military and intelligence communities deployed against citizens within the United States.

When military tactics and strategies drawn from the front lines of war are applied to radically different contexts, the results are rarely beneficial to the health of a democracy.

According to the AP report, “The [NYPD] has dispatched teams of undercover officers, known as ‘rakers,’ into minority neighborhoods as part of a human mapping program, according to officials directly involved in the program. They’ve monitored daily life in bookstores, bars, cafes and nightclubs. Police have also used informants, known as ‘mosque crawlers,’ to monitor sermons, even when there’s no evidence of wrongdoing. NYPD officials have scrutinized imams and gathered intelligence on cab drivers and food cart vendors, jobs often done by Muslims. Many of these operations were built with help from the CIA, which is prohibited from spying on Americans but was instrumental in transforming the NYPD’s intelligence unit.”

Despite such prohibitions on spying on Americans, the NYPD and CIA have built a “partnership that has blurred the bright line between foreign and domestic spying.” The relationship has included a senior, active-duty CIA officer being hired by the NYPD to set up its intelligence programmes and another senior officer working as a “clandestine operative” inside police headquarters, and the CIA training of at least one police detective at the agency’s spy school.

Having watched the World Trade Center fall with my own eyes and then had to cope with a newborn son breathing in the soot and toxin-tainted air for weeks after, it’s hard not to sympathize with the NYPD’s willingness to “push the envelope” of police procedures in order to protect New Yorkers from a similar attack. It’s also hard not to agree with the assessment by NY cops that they can never again rely on the federal government to protect New York and therefore must become an active player in gathering and acting on intelligence that might affect the city’s eight million citizens.

Indeed, the NYPD’s “success” in these operations points out the weakness that still hampers effective intelligence work by the American intelligence community: Most CIA officers are white men who could never blend into a Muslim community; but the NYPD’s 34,000 officers reflect the ethnic and religious mosaic of New York, providing it with a host of Arab and South Asian officers who speak the languages and intimately know the cultures, making it much easier for them, effectively, to spy on their communities.

And it’s clear that this is what the NYPD is doing, having become, in the AP‘s words, “one of the country’s most aggressive domestic intelligence agencies.” Intelligence-read, spy-agencies spy; they aren’t set up primarily to look for evidence of crimes, but to gather intelligence, knowledge that might later be useful do shape policies or influence the behaviour of the groups or communities being surveilled.

Police are supposed to monitor citizens only to the extent there is evidence or sufficient suspicion of criminal activity or its planning. But the AP reports that in many cases members of the unit go out of their way not to have their information, or even their existence, brought to a court of law.

Simply put, if the intelligence that the NYPD intelligence unit is gathering is not useful to the judicial process, then it’s not police work, it’s spying. If Americans think being spied on by their government isn’t such a big deal, they can talk to the millions of Arabs who’ve rebelled in good measures because of decades of such practices, or the citizens of former Communist countries in Eastern Europe. All of these governments also justified spying with the need to “protect” the state and citizens from potentially dangerous people. But it always ends the same way.

Facebooktwittermail

Syrian businessmen signal revulsion with President Assad’s regime

The Guardian reports:

Syrian businessmen are reaching out to western diplomats, expressing revulsion for the Assad regime but also concern at the crippling effect of sanctions.

Diplomats say several businessmen from the merchant elite have approached western embassies to register their unease. “There are many businessmen coming to us to tell us how much they hate the regime,” said one senior western diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Protesters continue to take to the streets in large numbers but have so far been unable to dislodge those in power, prompting them to look for any splits within the regime’s political, military and economic base. While the international community has targeted the economy with sanctions, protesters have circulated lists of companies to boycott. The US and EU have accompanied their calls for President Basher al-Assad to resign with economic sanctions.

“Business leaders are definitely moving because they are realising the regime may not be around forever,” said Adib Shishakly, a Saudi-based businessman.

Almost six months of protests against Assad have all but wiped out the tourist industry, which accounts for 12% of GDP, while the International Institute of Finance forecasts that the economy will shrink by 3% this year.

Neighbouring countries, including Turkey, have until now called on Bashar al-Assad to reform rather than resign. But in a sign of rising tensions, Turkey’s president, Abdullah Gül, told Anatolia news agency on Sunday that Turkey has lost confidence. His comments came a day after Iran warned the regime to heed protesters’ demands and the Arab League said it would send its leader to Damascus.

Facebooktwittermail

Syrian opposition decides to take up arms against Assad regime

Deutsche Presse-Agentur reports:

The leader of the Revolutionary Council of the Syrian Coordination Committees, Mohammad Rahhal, said in remarks published Sunday that the council took the decision to arm the Syrian revolution.

Since mid-March pro-democracy protests have engulfed most of Syria calling for political and economic reforms as well as for the ousting of Syrian president Bashar Assad.

“We made our decision to arm the revolution which will turn violent very soon because what we are being subjected to today is a global conspiracy that can only be faced by an armed uprising,” he told the London-based As-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper. Circumstances no longer allow dealing peacefully with the regime’s “crimes,” he added. “We will use whatever arms and rocks … We will respond to the people’s calls to arm the revolution,” he said.

“Confronting this monster (the Syrian regime) now requires arms, especially after it has become clear to everyone that the world only supports the Syrian uprising through speeches,” he added. Rahal lashed out some Arab regimes and described them as “cowards.”

Haaretz reports:

Turkish President Abdullah Gul said he has lost confidence in Syria, and that the situation has reached a point where changes would be too little too late, Turkish state-run news agency Anatolian reported on Sunday.

Commenting on the situation in Turkey’s neighbor, Gul told Anatolian in an interview: “We are really very sad. Incidents are said to be ‘finished’ and then another 17 people are dead.”

He continued, asking, “how many will it be today? Clearly we have reached a point where anything would be too little too late. We have lost our confidence.”

Earlier this month Gul, who like other Turkish leaders has piled pressure on Syria to end a violent crackdown on protests, appealed to Syrian President Bashar Assad not to leave reforms until it was too late.

Hürriyet Daily News reports:

Turkey would side with the Syrian people if it has to make a choice between the neighboring country’s government and its citizens, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu said late Thursday.

“We would choose the people, because what is permanent for us is the brotherhood of the Syrian and Turkish people. Our side is certain. We are with the Syrian people and we will continue to be,” Davutoğlu said in an interview with the private news channel NTV.

Davutoğlu earlier this month traveled to Damascus to convey a “last warning” to Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad to end the bloodshed. The neglect of this advice by the Syrian regime and its continued military operations against the Syrian people during the holy month of Ramadan have caused deep frustration and anger in Ankara, whose ties with Damascus had flourished in recent years. Turkey has repeatedly called on al-Assad to initiate reforms but has stopped short of calling for his departure.

“There is a vicious cycle, we want Syria to immediately break this cycle,” Davutoğlu told NTV, adding that Turkey was ready for any scenario.

Though he ruled out a foreign military intervention, the minister said Turkey “cannot accept human-rights violations either. Our ‘zero problems with neighbors’ policy does not mean we’ll turn our back to such violations.”

When asked what message he conveyed to al-Assad in Damascus, Davutoğlu said: “[I said] we stood by you against possible interventions by other countries. But now if we have to make a choice between you and [your] people in this current problem of yours, we’ll side with the people. Because what is lasting and what will endure until eternity is the brotherhood of the people of Turkey and Syria.”

Tom Rogan writes:

External pressure is building on President Bashar al-Assad. Along with the EU and US, key regional actors including Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have taken steps to distance themselves from the faltering Syrian regime. Further, as Meir Javedanfar argues on this site, the Iranian clerical leadership will only support Assad to the degree that this support serves their on-going Islamic revolution.

These states are calibrating their policies towards Syria with an eye on Assad’s potential fall from power and the consequences likely to follow. Hezbollah’s approach under leader Hassan Nasrallah is no different. As David Hirst notes, Nasrallah has made Hezbollah “the most influential political player in Lebanon and probably the most proficient guerrilla organisation in the world”. Nasrallah does not risk jeopardising these successes lightly.

Clearly, because of the major forms of support that Assad provides, Hezbollah has a vested interest in his political survival. This Syrian support includes the provision of material supplies and a relatively safe haven for Hezbollah leaders. Syria also acts as a reliable ally through which supplies of money and weapons can transit from Iran to Lebanon. And, as Randa Slim explains, Assad’s regime provides a legitimating and supportive Arab state to balance Iran. This complements Hezbollah’s intended appearance as a cross-sectarian liberation force, a force struggling not just for Shia Islam but for the subjugated “oppressed” in general.

However, as important as Assad’s support is to Hezbollah, the survival of his regime does not take precedence over Hezbollah’s objectives: the defeat of Israel, the marginalisation of American influence and the creation of a regional arc of Shia theocracies.

Accordingly, Hezbollah’s support for Assad is predicated on its perception of his political survival as both realistically possible and compatible with Hezbollah’s objectives. Hezbollah thus must consider the impact of its stance regarding Assad in the context of political environments in Syria, Lebanon and beyond.

Facebooktwittermail

Gaddafi offers to negotiate with Libya rebels over transfer of power

The Guardian reports:

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has offered to enter talks with the Libyan rebels over the formation of a transitional government as loyalist fighters are pushed further to the outskirts of Tripoli and rebel forces prepare for an assault on the ousted dictator’s hometown of Sirte.

Moussa Ibrahim, regime spokesman, called the New York office of the Associated Press on Saturday night and said Gaddafi wanted his son Saadi to lead talks with the National Transitional Council. Ibrahim, who was identified only by his voice, has proved one of the despot’s most loyal and vocal allies as the 42-year-old regime crumbles. He said he was still in Tripoli, while Gaddafi – whom the rebels and Nato are desperately trying to capture – remained in Libya.

The offer of negotiations were slapped down quickly by a senior NTC official, who said the rebels would not talk to Gaddafi unless he surrendered.

“No negotiation is taking place with Gaddafi,” said Ali Tarhouni, the rebel official in charge of oil and financial matters. He told Reuters: “If he wants to surrender, then we will negotiate and we will capture him.”

Guma el-Gamaty, the UK co-ordinator of the NTC, said the rebels were “absolutely 100% not” prepared to enter into negotiations with Gaddafi about a transitional government.

He said: “The only negotiation is how to apprehend him, [for him] to tell us where he is and what conditions he wants for his apprehension: whether he wants to be kept in a single cell or shared cell or whether he wants to have his own shower or not, you know. These are the kind of negotitations we are willing to talk about.”

Facebooktwittermail

Israel’s social justice movement — on vacation or early retirement?

Gideon Levy reports:

Last night the people demanded social justice again, but a little less than before. After a brief (and unnecessary ) hiatus due to the situation in the south the protest returned last night, but not bigger and better than ever. This wasn’t the massive turnout of previous weeks, merely 20,000 or so in the streets of Tel Aviv. The main absentee was the spirit of demonstrations past. Shortly before the march was due to start Ibn Gvirol Street resembled itself on Yom Kippur: Thundering silence, and people strolling in the road.

When the emcee addressed the crowd, saying, “And now for the greatest hit of all times, ‘The people demand social justice,'” it was obvious that the protest hit parade was halted. The addition of the movement to free Gilad Shalit to last night’s demonstration signaled a dilution of the protest. Last night there were more national flags, more blue and white for Shalit and less social-justice red.

Israel Communist Party (Hadash ) activists could be seen carrying dozens of unwanted signs back to their cars. The images of Shalit, Benjamin Netanyahum and Yitzhak Tshuva heading up the demonstration were an odd, unclear and superfluous mixture. Blended messages are destined to break down.

Shalit deserves his own, enormous demonstrations, boldly announcing that his release can only be achieved by releasing a thousand Palestinian prisoners. Social justice deserves its own giant demonstration, but there’s not enough room for both of them on the same electricity pole: The leaders of the social protest, who have fled from issues of security and foreign policy as if from fire, do not need to include the release of an abducted soldier on their agenda.

“And thy sons shall return to their borders,” Gilad’s father, Noam, said last night, to the roars of the crowd, but the border of the social protest must be maintained despite the signs reading “Gilad Shalit at home is also social justice.” If the borders are to be expanded, then they must also encompass a few other, more courageous, issues.

Justice was once again evident in the price of the bottled mineral water being sold on every corner last night: five shekels, the cheapest price in town.

A film crew for “60 Minutes,” the veteran investigative news magazine of the American television network CBS, wandered among the demonstrators. A few weeks ago its legendary reporter, Bob Simon, filmed a segment about the famous Tel Aviv bubble, and now it had to be updated, in the spirit of the times, before its scheduled broadcast. The bubble’s walls have grown a little thinner, after all, even if it hasn’t burst entirely.

Shortly before the start of last night’s demonstration the tent encampment on Rothschild Boulevard was near empty, just as it has been for the past week or so. Rows and rows of tents, but not a living soul but for a handful of actual homeless people, the sort that genuinely don’t have anywhere else to go.

This tent city should be taken down – it’s done its job. To do so would require a healthy portion of courage and honesty, but that’s what the people behind this protest movement are supposed to be known for. One of them, Eldad Yaniv of the “national left,” said last night that it’s the nature of protest to come in waves, and so even if last night’s demonstration was smaller than previous ones it was important to persist: Every Friday after prayers in the Cairo mosques; every Saturday night, after the end of Shabbat, in Tel Aviv.

Last night the protest proved that reports of its death were exaggerated and premature. It’s still here, alive and kicking, if with slightly less punch. Too many people came last night as observers, too few of them were angry and excited as in previous weeks. It’s still the best show in town, even if last night Shalom Hanoch was in the crowd rather than on the stage, singing and playing guitar. He’s tired of singing “Mashiah lo ba,” one of the first Israeli social protest songs, from long before the time he sang it with Stav and Daphni. Last night was a dress rehearsal for the next demonstration. All eyes are focused on the “million-person demonstration.” Will there truly be one million people there? Watch this space next week.

Facebooktwittermail

Egyptian military source: We’re considering modification of Egypt-Israel peace treaty

Al-Masry Al-Youm reports:

A well-placed source at the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces has said Egypt is currently studying the possibility of modifying the Camp David Agreement with regard to the number of military troops and equipment allowed into Sinai.

However, an Israeli source told the French news agency AFP that Egypt has not submitted a request in this regard.

At a ministerial meeting on Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said his country is willing to consider an Egyptian request to bolster its troops in Sinai, although he said earlier there was no reason for the treaty to be modified.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said the government is not willing to grant Egypt such request.

Facebooktwittermail

Egypt mulls buffer zone on Gaza border

Al-Masry Al-Youm reports:

Egypt is currently considering a plan to set up a 5-kilometer wide buffer zone on its border with the Gaza Strip, senior security sources told Al-Masry Al-Youm on Saturday.

They said that security forces are finalizing a plan to destroy smuggling tunnels, adding that heavy digging equipment was recently transferred to border town of Rafah. The machinery, which uses modern vibration techniques, is meant to destroy the tunnels at a depth of 20 meters below the surface of the earth.

Facebooktwittermail

How Israel takes its revenge on boys who throw stones

The Independent reports:

The boy, small and frail, is struggling to stay awake. His head lolls to the side, at one point slumping on to his chest. “Lift up your head! Lift it up!” shouts one of his interrogators, slapping him. But the boy by now is past caring, for he has been awake for at least 12 hours since he was separated at gunpoint from his parents at two that morning. “I wish you’d let me go,” the boy whimpers, “just so I can get some sleep.”

During the nearly six-hour video, 14-year-old Palestinian Islam Tamimi, exhausted and scared, is steadily broken to the point where he starts to incriminate men from his village and weave fantastic tales that he believes his tormentors want to hear.

This rarely seen footage seen by The Independent offers a glimpse into an Israeli interrogation, almost a rite of passage that hundreds of Palestinian children accused of throwing stones undergo every year.

Israel has robustly defended its record, arguing that the treatment of minors has vastly improved with the creation of a military juvenile court two years ago. But the children who have faced the rough justice of the occupation tell a very different story.

“The problems start long before the child is brought to court, it starts with their arrest,” says Naomi Lalo, an activist with No Legal Frontiers, an Israeli group that monitors the military courts. It is during their interrogation where their “fate is doomed”, she says.

Sameer Shilu, 12, was asleep when the soldiers smashed in the front door of his house one night. He and his older brother emerged bleary-eyed from their bedroom to find six masked soldiers in their living room.

Checking the boy’s name on his father’s identity card, the officer looked “shocked” when he saw he had to arrest a boy, says Sameer’s father, Saher. “I said, ‘He’s too young; why do you want him?’ ‘I don’t know,’ he said”. Blindfolded, and his hands tied painfully behind his back with plastic cords, Sameer was bundled into a Jeep, his father calling out to him not to be afraid. “We cried, all of us,” his father says. “I know my sons; they don’t throw stones.”

In the hours before his interrogation, Sameer was kept blindfolded and handcuffed, and prevented from sleeping. Eventually taken for interrogation without a lawyer or parent present, a man accused him of being in a demonstration, and showed him footage of a boy throwing stones, claiming it was him.

“He said, ‘This is you’, and I said it wasn’t me. Then he asked me, ‘Who are they?’ And I said that I didn’t know,” Sameer says. “At one point, the man started shouting at me, and grabbed me by the collar, and said, ‘I’ll throw you out of the window and beat you with a stick if you don’t confess’.”

Sameer, who protested his innocence, was fortunate; he was released a few hours later. But most children are frightened into signing a confession, cowed by threats of physical violence, or threats against their families, such as the withdrawal of work permits.

When a confession is signed, lawyers usually advise children to accept a plea bargain and serve a fixed jail sentence even if not guilty. Pleading innocent is to invite lengthy court proceedings, during which the child is almost always remanded in prison. Acquittals are rare. “In a military court, you have to know that you’re not looking for justice,” says Gabi Lasky, an Israeli lawyer who has represented many children.

There are many Palestinian children in the West Bank villages in the shadow of Israel’s separation wall and Jewish settlements on Palestinian lands. Where largely non-violent protests have sprung up as a form of resistance, there are children who throw stones, and raids by Israel are common. But lawyers and human rights groups have decried Israel’s arrest policy of targeting children in villages that resist the occupation.

In most cases, children as young as 12 are hauled from their beds at night, handcuffed and blindfolded, deprived of sleep and food, subjected to lengthy interrogations, then forced to sign a confession in Hebrew, a language few of them read.

Israeli rights group B’Tselem concluded that, “the rights of minors are severely violated, that the law almost completely fails to protect their rights, and that the few rights granted by the law are not implemented”.

Israel claims to treat Palestinian minors in the spirit of its own law for juveniles but, in practice, it is rarely the case. For instance, children should not be arrested at night, lawyers and parents should be present during interrogations, and the children must be read their rights. But these are treated as guidelines, rather than a legal requirement, and are frequently flouted. And Israel regards Israeli youngsters as children until 18, while Palestinians are viewed as adults from 16.

Facebooktwittermail

Israel has no chance of stopping recognition of Palestinian state

Haaretz reports:

Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Ron Prosor, sent a classified cable to the Foreign Ministry last week, stating that Israel stands no chance of rallying a substantial number of states to oppose a resolution at the UN General Assembly recognizing a Palestinian state in September.

Sources in the Prime Minister’s Office, meanwhile, said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is considering not participating in this year’s General Assembly. Instead President Shimon Peres is likely to represent Israel.

Under the headline “Report from the frontline at the UN,” Prosor – considered one of the most experienced and senior Israeli diplomats – offered a very pessimistic estimate as to Israel’s ability to significantly affect the results of the vote. Even though he did not state so explicitly, Prosor implies that Israel will sustain a diplomatic defeat.

“The maximum that we can hope to gain [at the UN vote] is for a group of states who will abstain or be absent during the vote,” Prosor wrote, adding that his comments are based on more than 60 meetings he held during the past few weeks with his counterparts at the UN. “Only a few countries will vote against the Palestinian initiative,” he wrote.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is expected to contact the UN secretary general on September 20 and ask for recognition of Palestine as a full member state of the UN. At the Foreign Ministry, the assessment is that in order to avoid an American veto, the Palestinians will seek a vote at the General Assembly and not at the Security Council, even though the former is less binding. The vote at the General Assembly will probably take place in October.

Foreign Ministry sources estimate that 130-140 states will vote in favor of the Palestinians. A major question mark remains over the position of the 27 member states of the European Union.

The EU’s head of foreign policy, Catherine Ashton, will meet with Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman in Jerusalem today, ahead of a meeting of the EU’s foreign ministers on September 3.

A senior source at the Foreign Ministry, which is busy trying to foil the Palestinian move at the UN, said that so far only five western countries have promised Israel they would vote against recognition of a Palestinian state – the U.S., Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic.

“Most western countries will not be willing to be in the hall and vote against a Palestinian state,” the senior Foreign Ministry source said.

However, the stance of the four European countries may change in line with the wording of the resolution that the Palestinians will propose. If the text is moderate and includes the possibility of returning to the negotiating table immediately following the vote at the UN, these four states may alter their opposition and abstain.

At the Foreign Ministry they believe the EU’s 27 member states will be split between a large group that will support the Palestinians and two smaller groups that will abstain and oppose the resolution.

The Palestinian Foreign Minister, Riyad al-Maliki, said over the weekend that the Palestinian Authority is close to gaining the support of 130 states which will recognize a Palestinian state. This follows the recent recognition of a Palestinian state by Honduras and El Salvador.

China also announced it will support the Palestinian resolution at the UN.

The Palestinians estimate that Guatemala and several Caribbean island-states will also announce their recognition of a Palestinian state in coming weeks. Israel is continuing its international campaign to avert support for the resolution and a number of ministers are being dispatched to Africa and Asia.

Nonetheless, it appears that Benjamin Netanyahu has given up on the effort with his decision to avoid the UN General Assembly next month. “At this time the PM does not believe that his trip to the UN will contribute to a change in the vote on the resolution for Palestinian state recognition,” one of Netanyahu’s advisers said.

President Peres is probably going to take Netanyahu’s place. Lieberman, who will also travel to the UN, recommended to the PM that Peres address the General Assembly, so that the Israeli position which will be heard at the UN will be as conciliatory and moderate as possible.

Most senior Israeli officials believe that Israel should treat the UN vote as it did the Goldstone Report – as something unavoidable which must be condemned. A smaller group of officials, which includes foreign ministry officials, Shin Bet and IDF planning officers, believe Israel should try to influence the language of the resolution, aiming at a resumption of negotiations after the vote.

Facebooktwittermail

Army vet with PTSD sought the treatment he needed by taking hostages — but got jail instead

Stars and Stripes reports:

“I’m Robert Anthony Quinones, but my friends call me Q,” the former Army sergeant told the ER medic as he pointed a 9 mm handgun at the medic’s head.

“Can I call you Q?” asked the nervous medic, Sgt. Hubert Henson.

“Yeah.”

“OK,” Henson replied. “Well, Q, if you put the gun away, I can take you upstairs to behavioral health to get help.”

Quinones scoffed, instead ordering Henson to carry his three bags: a shaving kit, a duffel stuffed with clothes and books, and a backpack bulging with two assault rifles, a .38-caliber handgun, knives and ammunition.

Fifteen months of carnage in Iraq had left the 29-year-old debilitated by post-traumatic stress disorder. But despite his doctor’s urgent recommendation, the Army failed to send him to a Warrior Transition Unit for help. The best the Department of Veterans Affairs could offer was 10-minute therapy sessions — via videoconference.

So, early on Labor Day morning last year, after topping off a night of drinking with a handful of sleeping pills, Quinones barged into Fort Stewart’s hospital, forced his way to the third-floor psychiatric ward and held three soldiers hostage, demanding better mental health treatment.

“I’ve done it the Army’s way,” Quinones told Henson. “We’re going to do it my way now.”

The standoff ended after two hours without any injuries, but Quinones’ problems were only beginning.

While in custody, Quinones threatened the lives of President Barack Obama and former President Bill Clinton, making his already bleak situation worse. Now he’s sitting in a jail cell awaiting his fate on a litany of federal charges while a court sorts out whether he should be prosecuted or committed.

Quinones’ story is one of an ordinary soldier who went off to war, came home broken, and then went over the edge after the government didn’t do enough to fix him. Even the three soldiers held at the point of Quinones’ guns today express more empathy than animosity for their captor.

To them, what Quinones did that day was the ultimate cry for help.

Facebooktwittermail

Syrian security forces storm Damascus mosque

Al Jazeera reports:

Syrian security forces have reportedly killed one person and wounded several others protesting at a mosque in the capital, Damascus.

Activists said “thousands” of people took to the streets in Kafarsouseh, a western suburb, to protest against President Bashar al-Assad’s rule after early morning prayers on Saturday.

A witness told Al Jazeera that security forces and shabiha [regime thugs] arrived at the scene, using sound bombs and tear gas in an attempt to stop the demonstration.

Protesters threw rocks and the tear gas canisters back at the security forces, the witness said, and security forces responded with gun fire, injuring eight people.

The witness said protesters were then pushed back into the mosque, which was surrounded by shabiha and security forces.

Activists said security forces stormed the mosque, attacking the 80-year-old imam who was later taken to a Damascus hospital. Parts of the interiors was damaged and about 150 people arrested, according to activists.

While the mosque was besieged, crowds gathered to protest in a square adjacent to the mosque. Activists said five people were injured when security forces opened fire and used teargas to disperse the protesters.

Facebooktwittermail

U.S., Israel monitor suspected Syrian WMD

The Wall Street Journal reports:

The U.S. and Israel are closely monitoring Syria’s suspected cache of weapons of mass destruction, fearing that terror groups could take advantage of the revolt against President Bashar al-Assad to obtain blistering agents, nerve gas and long-range missiles, according to officials from both countries.

U.S intelligence services believe Syria’s nonconventional weapons programs include significant stockpiles of mustard gas, VX and Sarin gas and the missile and artillery systems to deliver them.

United Nations investigators also recently concluded that Damascus had been secretly constructing a nuclear reactor with North Korean help before Israeli jets destroyed the site in late 2007. U.S. and U.N. nonproliferation officials continue to worry that Pyongyang may have provided Syria with additional nuclear-related equipment.

“We are very concerned about the status of Syria’s WMD, including chemical weapons,” Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, said in an interview. “Together with the U.S. administration, we are watching this situation very carefully.”

Israel has historically held concerns about the fall of the Assad regime, which has largely kept the Syria-Israel border quiet for the past 40 years. Still, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has increasingly voiced support for democratic change in Damascus.

“We see a lot of opportunity emerging from the end of the Assad regime,” Mr. Oren said.

A senior U.S. official said Syria’s suspected chemical weapons arsenal “is of great importance and…under intense study.”

U.S. and Israeli officials won’t disclose exactly how they are keeping tabs on Syrian weaponry. But in the past, the U.S. and Israel have tracked activities at Syrian military installations using satellites and human spies. In 2008, the George W. Bush administration released detailed photographs and other intelligence of a reactor allegedly set to produce weapons-grade plutonium on the Euphrates River in eastern Syria.

Washington’s concerns about Syria mirror in some ways those held about Libya, where U.S. intelligence agencies are trying to help rebels secure mustard gas, shoulder-fired missiles and light arms amassed by Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s regime in recent decades. The Obama administration is concerned these weapons could fall into the hands of militant groups and terrorist organizations operating across North Africa and the Middle East.

Facebooktwittermail