Posts from — July 2012

Will Bahrain Convict an 11-year-old “Protester”?
By Sanjeev Bery – 3 July, 2012 – Amnesty International

This Thursday, an 11-year-old boy will find out if the Government of Bahrain truly considers him a security threat.

Young Ali Hassan was arrested by Bahraini police on May 13th on a street near both his home and the site of a protest. He was detained for 23 days before being allowed to see a lawyer, and he spent nearly a month in jail before being released.

He has been charged with “participating with others in an illegal gathering of more than five people, in order to disturb public security by way of violence.” The Guardian reports that if found guilty, Ali could be sentenced to up to three years in prison (take action here).

The case has drawn international media attention, with articles in CNN, the Associated Press, Time, RealClearPolitics, BBC, AFP, The Independent, The Telegraph, and others. Once again, the Government of Bahrain is in the spotlight for violating human rights.

According to his lawyer, Ali was just playing with two friends when police officers stopped the children and threatened to shoot them if they did not do as they were told. The two other boys managed to escape, but Ali was arrested and accused of intentionally blocking the street. Following his arrest, he was reportedly moved between several police stations for a period of about four hours and interrogated.

Ali later told his lawyer that during the time he was alone, he became hungry and tired and eventually “confessed” to accusations against him. The day after his arrest, he denied all accusations during an appearance before the juvenile prosecution, saying that he only “confessed” because police promised to release him if he did. On July 5th, young Ali and his family will learn the verdict in his case.

Is this any way to treat an 11-year-old boy? Can such a young child truly be guilty of “illegal gathering” and “disturbing security?”

According to Bahrain’s own laws, the answer appears to be no. Article 32 of Bahrain’s Penal Code states: “A person, who is not more than 15 years of age at the time of committing an act constituting a crime, shall not be held liable. In this case he shall be subject to provisions of the Juveniles Law.”
…more

It will not be long before the Bahraini rulers will be forced to implement the serious demands of the Bahraini nation for legitimate freedom.” Iranian lawmaker Safar Naeemi-Raz, an Iranian lawmaker says Bahrain’s ruling Al Khalifa regime has no option but to surrender to the demands of the Bahraini nation.

Al Khalifa has no option but to surrender to popular demands: Iran MP
21 June, 2012 – PressTV

“It will not be long before the Bahraini rulers will be forced to implement the serious demands of the Bahraini nation for legitimate freedom,” Safar Naeemi-Raz, member of Iran’s Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, said.

He added that while the Al Khalifa regime presents itself as a guardian of human rights, it is carrying out the worst kind of confrontational measures to suppress the peaceful protests in Bahrain.

“The truth is that the Bahraini authorities are crying out slogans of defending human rights to maintain their own positions, but in practice they have not shied away from any crime,” he said.

“The Bahraini rulers must surrender to the demand of the Bahraini nation instead of adopting contradictory measures.”

The Bahraini kingdom has been the scene of anti-regime demonstrations since February 2011. The Manama regime forces have been cracking down on the protests ever since.

The rallies continue across the kingdom despite a ban on public gatherings and the regime crackdown.

Scores of people have been killed and many others have been arrested during the revolution.

Bahrainis hold King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa responsible for the death and arrest of protesters.
…source

Military intervention in Syria would be disastrous for its people
3 July, 2012 – The Guardian

Syrians opposed to intervention are ignored by a de facto alliance against the ‘Shia crescent’ between the US, Saudi Arabia, Israel and al-Qaida

US general Wesley Clark, the former supreme commander of allied forces in Europe, once revealed that within weeks of the 9/11 terrorist atrocity the then secretary of defence Donald Rumsfeld described how “we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” After invading Afghanistan of course.

The 2003 occupation of Iraq, however, did not go according to plan, and Israel was defeated in Lebanon in 2006. The downfall of US-Saudi allies Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, raised more alarms, leading to the Nato bombing of Libya. Today’s target is Syria, which is at the heart of what Jordan’s King Abdullah called the “Shia crescent”: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran.

It is opposition by the “crescent” to hegemony by the US and Israel, rather than religion or human rights, that worries Washington and its dictatorial allies in the region. For it wasn’t very long ago that the Saudi rulers bankrolled the so-called “Alawite-Shia” regime of former Syrian president Hafez al-Assad and had good relations with “Shia” Iran under the shah’s dictatorship. Today it still backs Iraq’s former pro-US Shia prime minister, Ayad Allawi against Nouri al-Maliki, the current Shia prime minister. And the US Congress has been pampering the Iranian Mujahideen e-Khalq, a “Shia” organisation classified by the US itself as a terrorist group.

It is now obvious that a strategic reconsideration of US-Saudi-Israeli regional priorities followed big US losses in Iraq and rising American popular opposition to US wars. In his 2007 New Yorker essay, the journalist Seymour Hersh related that senior US officials changed strategy not only in Iraq, but also in Lebanon and Syria: “In Lebanon, the administration has co-operated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni [Wahhabi], in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shia organisation that is backed by Iran. The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to al-Qaida.”

But it was deemed that Syria and Iran were “more dangerous” than al-Qaida supporters. Congressional procedures were circumvented “by leaving the execution or the funding to the Saudis”.

Iran has also officially pointed the finger at an Israeli “terrorist training base” in Iraqi Kurdistan, which is a major route for intervention in Syria.

US and Nato tolerance of al-Qaida former terrorists was evident in Libya. And with al-Qaida officially declaring war on the Syrian regime, the de facto US-Saudi-al-Qaida-Israeli marriage of convenience against the anti-US “crescent” is quite startling. It is an alliance not too dissimilar to the one that waged war on the communist “infidels” in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Many Iraqis also believed that the US-led occupation forces followed the same strategy by turning a blind eye to al-Qaida-type sectarian terrorism in Iraq, because it weakened patriotic resistance to occupation and encouraged divisive sectarian conflict.

As the threat to their rule from the uprisings moved ever closer, engulfing neighbouring Yemen and Bahrain, headquarters of the US 5th fleet, the Saudi and Qatari rulers put their intense rivalry to one side and moved to violently crush the Bahraini people’s uprising, and to undermine the democratic protest movements in Yemen and the entire region. Backed by the CIA and Turkey, their favoured means were throwing petro-dollars at selected opposition factions and militarising the conflicts. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is “fine-tuning” US military options against Syria and the CIA is organising the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and backing the Syrian National Council (SNC).

But what goes unreported in relation to Syria is that democratic opposition organisations, at the receiving end of decades of regime repression and probably representing the will of majority of Syrians, strongly opposed the militarisation of the protests. They argued that militarisation weakened the growing mass movement for radical democratic change, left the door wide open for foreign intervention, threatened the social fabric of Syrian society and helped Israeli forces occupying the Syrian Golan Heights, where Israeli tanks are an hour’s drive away from Damascus. They also draw lessons from the destruction of Iraq and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees who fled Iraq’s fires to Syria after the US-led invasion. …more

‘Terrorism Isn’t The Disease; Egregious Injustice Is’
PANINI ANAND interviews ARUNDHATI ROY – Frontlines of Revolutionary Struggle

No one individual critic has taken on the Indian State like Arundhati Roy has. In a fight that began with Pokhran, moved to Narmada, and over the years extended to other insurgencies, people’s struggles and the Maoist underground, she has used her pensmanship to challenge India’s government, its elite, corporate giants, and most recently, the entire structure of global finance and capitalism. She was jailed for a day in 2002 for contempt of court, and slapped with sedition charges in November 2010 for an alleged anti-India speech she delivered, along with others, at a seminar in New Delhi on Kashmir, titled ‘Azadi—the only way’. Excerpts from an interview to Panini Anand:

How do you look at laws like sedition and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, or those like AFSPA, in what is touted as the largest democracy?

I’m glad you used the word touted. It’s a good word to use in connection with India’s democracy. It certainly is a democracy for the middle class. In places like Kashmir or Manipur or Chhattisgarh, democracy is not available. Not even in the black market. Laws like the UAPA, which is just the UPA government’s version of POTA, and the AFSPA are ridiculously authoritarian—they allow the State to detain and even kill people with complete impunity. They simply ought to have no place in a democracy. But as long as they don’t affect the mainstream middle class, as long as they are used against people in Manipur, Nagaland or Kashmir, or against the poor or against Muslim ‘terrorists’ in the ‘mainland’, nobody seems to mind very much.

“India’s democracy is for the middle class; for Kashmir or Manipur, it’s not available. Not even in the black market.”

Are the people waging war against the State or is the State waging war against its people? How do you look at the Emergency of the ’70s, or the minorities who feel targeted, earlier the Sikhs and now the Muslims?

Some people are waging war against the State. The State is waging a war against a majority of its citizens. The Emergency in the ’70s became a problem because Indira Gandhi’s government was foolish enough to target the middle class, foolish enough to lump them with the lower classes and the disenfranchised. Vast parts of the country today are in a much more severe Emergency-like situation. But this contemporary Emergency has gone into the workshop for denting-painting. It’s come out smarter, more streamlined. I’ve said this before: look at the wars the Indian government has waged since India became a sovereign nation; look at the instances when the army has been called out against its ‘own’ people—Nagaland, Assam, Mizoram, Manipur, Kashmir, Telangana, Goa, Bengal, Punjab and (soon to come) Chhattisgarh—it is a State that is constantly at war. And always against minorities—tribal people, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, never against the middle class, upper-caste Hindus.

How does one curb the cycle of violence if the State takes no action against ultra-left ‘terrorist groups’? Wouldn’t it jeopardise internal security?

I don’t think anybody is advocating that no action should be taken against terrorist groups, not even the ‘terrorists’ themselves. They are not asking for anti-terror laws to be done away with. They are doing what they do, knowing full well what the consequences will be, legally or otherwise. They are expressing fury and fighting for a change in a system that manufactures injustice and inequality. They don’t see themselves as ‘terrorists’. When you say ‘terrorists’ if you are referring to the CPI (Maoist), though I do not subscribe to Maoist ideology, I certainly do not see them as terrorists. Yes they are militant, they are outlaws. But then anybody who resists the corporate-state juggernaut is now labelled a Maoist—whether or not they belong to or even agree with the Maoist ideology. People like Seema Azad are being sentenced to life imprisonment for possessing banned literature.

So what is the definition of ‘terrorist’ now, in 2012? It is actually the economic policies that are causing this massive inequality, this hunger, this displacement that is jeopardising internal security—not the people who are protesting against them. Do we want to address the symptoms or the disease? The disease is not terrorism. It’s egregious injustice. Sure, even if we were a reasonably just society, Maoists would still exist. So would other extremist groups who believe in armed resistance or in terrorist attacks. But they would not have the support they have today. As a country, we should be ashamed of ourselves for tolerating this squalor, this misery and the overt as well as covert ethnic and religious bigotry we see all around us. (Narendra Modi for Prime Minister!! Who in their right mind can even imagine that?) We have stopped even pretending that we have a sense of justice. All we’re doing is genuflecting to major corporations and to that sinking ocean-liner known as the United States of America. …more

MOI Seizes largest “terrorist weapons” cache in Bahrain history

The Downside of Bahrain’s Counter-Terrorism Prowess
Religon and Politics in Bahrain – 4 July, 2012

By now readers will have heard of the “bomb plot” uncovered by the Interior Ministry (with dramatic video) and now being investigated with the help of a forensic team from the British Metropolitan Police. (It seems that Yates’ advisory role with the Interior Ministry did not end as scheduled in April after all.) Three individuals have already been named as suspects, and anonymous “senior political officials” have told the BBC that the devices are so sophisticated that they “could not have been put together without help from outside the country”–namely from Hizballah, with whom the three suspects are purported to have trained.

In fact, however, as one contributor to the Gulf2K mailing list notes,

The “bombs…with hundreds of iron balls” sound like a standard AP device, in which (steel) ball-bearings are laid over the explosive charge to function as shrapnel. The set up has been used in suicide vests, in improvised hand-grenades, and in “claymore” type devices, whether improvised or manufactured. Such a system in itself is not indicative of any particular geographic or organisational origin.

One will observe further that the original report in the Gulf Daily News of “five tonnes of explosive materials” has since been downgraded (in the BBC story linked above) to “over 100kg,” a difference of merely 1.5 orders of magnitude (~45 times). So more or less the same.

Yet, media exaggerations aside, the more general difficulty in knowing what to make of Bahrain’s newest foiled terrorist plot is that the country may well be the historical origin behind Aesop’s “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.” (Which would vindicate Sunni claims of being the original inhabitants of the island!) When every activity of the unregistered opposition or trip to Lebanon by someone linked to Shi’a groups–to say nothing of the February uprising–is a new terrorist scheme, who can blame observers for being skeptical when the Interior Ministry insists, “No, srsly, this time it’s a real plot we even have a video LOL!!1”

On the other hand, could one really be surprised if after 18 months of political stalemate and little hope for a breakthrough individuals would begin to turn to more radical alternatives in order to get the state’s attention? Indeed, already in April 2011 Hussein Ibish wrote a Foreign Policy article asking, “Is Bahrain Creating a New Terrorist Threat?” Since then, few in Bahrain have escaped involvement in the turmoil either directly or indirectly via family and friends. At the same time, Bahrain’s political factions have undergone marked polarization, with many in the opposition oriented not only against the government, but also against the state’s Sunni and Western supporters. On the other hand, Sunni movements continue to decry the Iranian-backed opposition as well as Western (i.e., British and especially U.S.) meddling, and this has been actively encouraged by none other than ranking government officials such as Defense Minister Khalifa bin Ahmad. …more

Scotland Yard officers sent to Bahrain to spy and suppress
Ahlul Bayt News Agency – 3 July, 2012

A group of Scotland Yard police officers have been dispatched to Bahrain to conduct espionage operations and assist the Saudi-backed forces in quelling anti-regime protests, a Bahraini political activist says.

The deployment of Scotland Yard forces in Bahrain is positive proof of Britain’s relentless efforts to continue its presence in the Persian Gulf island nation, Ali al-Faez told the Al-Alam news network.

Referring to the existence of a “situation room,” comprised of several countries, in Bahrain, he said that the United States and Britain want to stay on Bahrain’s soil and that’s why they have dispatched a large group of their officers to the country so that they can monitor the developments closely.”

The activist reiterated that the American and British forces have been stationed in the country to crack down on the protesters and their revolution.

Scores of people have been killed and thousands more put behind bars since the beginning in February 2011 of the popular anti-regime revolution in the sheikdom.

The protesters demand the formation of a democratically-elected government that would represent the will of the nation.

Demonstrators hold King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa responsible for deaths of protesters during the uprising. …source

Case comes months after government-sponsored report said torture of protesters and activists was systemic. Abuses run rampant to this day under the Consultation of Western “Security Thugs”, John Timoney, John Yates. Yates resigned Scotland Yard after he engaged in “phone scandal cover-up” – see story on more UK Scape Goats arrested today HERE

Bahrain charges 15 police officers with abuse
Terrorism Watch – 4 July, 2012

Only two police officers have been sentence to three months in prison for abuse [EPA]

Bahrain has charged 15 policemen with “mistreatment” of prisoners as part of an investigation into reports that security services tortured protesters involved in unrest since the beginning of the uprising in February 2011.

“The latest complaints were made during the month of June and nine of the complainants have already been questioned, resulting in three of them being referred to forensic doctors,” Nawaf Hamza, head of the Public Prosecution’s Special Investigation Unit, said in a statement published by the government Information Affairs Authority (IAA) on Tuesday.

“As a result 15 policemen have been questioned and informed of the charges against them. The investigation of the remaining complaints and those involved is ongoing.”

The latest charges come after other policemen accused of mistreatment of detainees and use of excessive force were
sentenced to five years in prison, the IAA said. It did not say how many policemen were sentenced.

The IAA had said in June that 19 security personnel were being investigated, including some officers, and that two officers were sentenced to three months in prison last month.

A commission of international legal experts reported in November that torture had been systematically used to punish and extract confessions from hundreds of protesters during a period of martial law after a crackdown on anti-government protests.

It also said that 35 people, mainly protesters, died during the unrest and that five of them died as a result of torture.

Although Bahraini security forces, backed by Saudi troops, broke up a mass protest camp in Manama in March 2011, police and demonstrators continue to clash almost daily. Each side blames the other for the violence.

Bahrain has put several police officers on trial for abuse and lethal torture, but international rights groups and opposition activists say the government is avoiding accountability at higher, policy-making levels.

Last month Bahrain’s interior minister said that police had been given no orders to torture or kill protesters. …source

Bahrain Security Forces Attack Peaceful Protest. This makes three times in recent days that the police have apparently thrown objects at close range that could very well have caused serious injuries. The authorities need to open an independent investigation, and if it’s shown that the police deliberately targeted a journalist and peaceful protester, hold whoever is responsible to account.

Bahrain: Hold Police Accountable in Teargas Episode
4 July, 2012 – Eric Goldstein – HRW

(Beirut) – Bahrain authorities should investigate police actions during recent demonstrations that injured one activist and narrowly missed injuring a journalist.

On June 27, 2012, after dispersing a demonstration, riot police threw a teargas canister that injured Zainab al-Khawaja, a prominent human rights activist, in the leg, she told Human Rights Watch. In a separate incident, Reem Khalifa, an Associated Press reporter, told Human Rights Watch that a policeman threw a stun grenade at her on June 29 while she and other journalists were standing a few hundred meters from another demonstration site. Khalifa was not injured. On June 22, riot police also fired tear gas and threw stun bombs at close range to disperse a peaceful demonstration in Manama.

“This makes three times in recent days that the police have apparently thrown objects at close range that could very well have caused serious injuries,” said Eric Goldstein, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “The authorities need to open an independent investigation, and if it’s shown that the police deliberately targeted a journalist and peaceful protester, hold whoever is responsible to account.”

The June 27 episode took place after riot police dispersed a demonstration in the village of Buri, near Issa Town. Al-Khawaja said that a policeman fired the tear gas canister directly at her from a distance of “seven to ten meters,” hitting her in the right leg. The Associated Press reported that “photos taken shortly after the shooting showed al-Khawaja limping with blood trickling down her right leg.” She said that doctors have put a cast on her leg and have recommended long bed rest.

On April 21, authorities had detained al-Khawaja on charges of “holding up traffic, illegal gathering, and assaulting a public employee” after she conducted a one-person sit-in on a main road. She was seeking the release of her father, the prominent protest leader and rights activist Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, who was sentenced to life in prison in June 2011 for his role in the 2011 pro-democracy protests. She is facing several charges relating to participation in “illegal gatherings.”

Khalifa told Human Rights Watch that three police cars stopped near her on the main al-Budaya’ highway on June 29 while she was talking on the phone with a colleague. “A policeman in the second car who was not wearing any riot police gear threw a stun grenade directly at me,” she said. “He was just two to three meters away.”

A colleague, who witnessed the incident but did not want to be identified, told Human Rights Watch: “She stepped aside before the stun grenade exploded; otherwise it would have hit her legs.”

On June 22, riot police used teargas and sound bombs to disperse a peaceful demonstration in Bilad al-Qadeem neighborhood in Manama, called by Al-Wefaq, Bahrain’s largest opposition group. Four witnesses told Human Rights Watch that riot police shot “flash-bang” grenades and teargas directly at the protesters without provocation. …more

U.K. Joins U.S. Info-Assault On Bahraini Opposition
4 July, 2012 – The Trench

The psychology of a state often mirrors the thought process of an individual, generating similar problems as a result of their connectivity. When confining a belligerent friend, “key strategic partner” or “long-standing ally,” an individual must choose between ignoring, enabling and reforming their behavior. Washington, London and Manama find themselves trapped in this dilemma, publicly inclined to “helping each other” while their policies implode under their suppressive weight. Using the visit of Lt. General Sheikh Rashid bin Abdullah Al-Khalifa, Bahrain’s Interior Minister, as a formal loophole to support the island regime, London brushed aside external criticism of its receptive welcome and disseminated new propaganda through the British media.

“[Her Majesty’s Government’s] policy is that Bahrain is a long-standing ally who has embarked on a process of reform. We want to help them along this path for the long-term stability of the kingdom and wider region.”

According to records of Al-Khalifa’s meetings, the British government is “keen to share lessons learnt from our experience in Northern Ireland.” Unfortunately this comparison is both flawed and ignored by London. First, organized conflict in Ireland burnt out over decades of military and political developments; Bahrain’s current unrest is relatively young, contains numerous geostrategic narratives and is far from a permanent resolution. Beyond inherent dissimilarities, London is also ignoring basic lessons of fourth-generation warfare (4GW) found within Ireland’s conflict. Unwilling to support the opposition’s fundamental grievance of under-representation, Washington and London are both guilty of attempting to prematurely end the uprising through a series of limited reforms and commissions.

This one-sided policy lacks any semblance of true COIN and has contributed to the growing divide between the monarchy and opposition, fueling anti-Western sentiment in the process. John Yates, the former Met assistant commissioner acting as a security adviser to King Hamad bin Isa Al-Khalifa, would join Bahraini Ambassador Alice Samaan for meetings with four senior Bahraini officials. Following April Formula-1 race outside Manama, Yates published a Telegraph “op-ed” that began by repeating the kingdom’s obligation to improve its governance. Yet the duplicitous tone of his scathing counterattack on the international media is readily apparent. Yates claims that Bahrainis are, “Bewildered at the level of ignorance about what is really happening here, at the level of animosity and bile, at the media bias.”

“And bewildered that so many in the UK, a long-standing friend and ally for two centuries, could so readily swallow everything opposition groups and activists were saying.”

As if Western governments aren’t lapping up the monarchy’s biased version of Bahrain’s uprising – Al-Khalifa claims that his security units “never” use excessive force. On the same day that Yates and other British officials met with the Interior Minister, who denies ordering his security forces to shoot Al-Wefaq’s leadership, 28 countries gathered at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva to “express concern” over the situation. Washington and London couldn’t bring themselves to join the group despite the fact that the UNHRC’s joint statement regurgitated their own political lines. Western media and lobbyist groups have also been contracted to slander the opposition, a tactic that the street movement cannot utilize.
…more

US presidential election’s impact on America’s ME policy, vice versa
3 July, 2012 – By Colin S. Cavell – PressTV

The presumed Republican presidential candidate William Mitt Romney is attempting to unseat President Barack Hussein Obama by embracing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s hostile and aggressive policy towards Iran.”
How US actions in the Middle East will affect the upcoming US presidential election and vice versa will prove to be the standard calculation for both the Democratic and Republican parties from now until the polls close on the evening of November 6, 2012.

The presumed Republican presidential candidate William Mitt Romney is attempting to unseat President Barack Hussein Obama by embracing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s hostile and aggressive policy towards Iran, declaring before the influential lobby group American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in March of this year that “we must not allow Iran to have the bomb or the capacity to make a bomb.” The implied presumption in candidate Romney’s charge is that Iran is actively pursuing the development of nuclear weapons, a claim which, so far, has proven to be without substance and even denied by Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta in January of this year, though he acknowledges that Iran is seeking “nuclear capability” in order to generate peaceful energy, a fact which Iran has been quite open about.

Democratic incumbent Obama meanwhile is portraying himself as more reserved and less belligerent in his desire to foment war against Iran, though, he, too, avows to be the most stalwart friend of Israel and is imposing increasingly restrictive sanctions on Iran. Though his actual intentions are not known, it is the appearance of Obama’s relative patience that allows him to claim the mantle of statesman and defender of the peace as compared to his bellicose Republican rival to domestic audiences.

Jaded political pundits argue that it does not matter which political party’s nominee ultimately triumphs, as US policy will be the same regardless of who the ultimate victor is in November. And while this cynicism may at times prove true, it is often an oversimplification of the nuances of American politics and is short-sighted as to the nature of politics in general. Yes, the demands of the financial and corporate elite do drive US policy, both domestic and foreign, but which sections of the ruling class are rewarded influences ultimately how such policies are carried out or not.

Similarly, Israeli political leadership is not monolithically behind Prime Minister Netanyahu’s reckless policy towards Iran. As Inter Press Service reporter Gareth Porter writes, “By staking out a policy line on Iran reflecting the views of the Israeli national security leadership, Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz has undercut the Benjamin Netanyahu government’s carefully planned strategy to get U.S. President Barack Obama to threaten war against Iran if it doesn’t give up its nuclear program.” (Porter, “New Israeli Deputy PM Undercuts Strategy of Pressure on Obama,” July 1, 2012). …more

If you loved the king, nothing bad would happen to you
by Witness Bahrain – 3 July – 2012

“Everyone here has a story,” I’ve been told repeatedly. “There are too many stories.”

Here is one.

L. came to meet me in the evening; an effusive woman with a round face, warm eyes and soft brown hair, covered by a scarf of shades of brown.

“Where can we sit?” she asked me, looking around the house for a private corner. She did not want to tell me her story in front of her young children.

L. worked for the Ministry of Health, in Human Resources. On April 18, 2011, a month after what is known as “the crackdown” began, hundreds of armed “special forces” surrounded the Ministry of Health compound. It was difficult know who comprised this armed force, L. told me, it seemed to be a mixture of army and police, some uniformed, some in civilian clothing, and almost all wearing masks. L. had never seen such a collection of various weapons outside of an American action flick. The armed operatives went from floor to floor. They knew precisely which employees they were looking for, and where their offices were located.

“They must have had help from the Sunni employees to have this much information,” L. said, then hesitated. “I feel bad talking about Sunni/Shi’a,” she added. “But that’s what happened.”

Several of the armed forces identified L. in her office, with the assistance of her manager, who observed all that ensued. Whatever comments she had made about the situation to her colleagues in the past months was documented on a sheet that her assailants read from.

The first punishment facing L. and her colleagues was humiliation. Prayer mats were thrown into the garbage. Insults were liberally slung. “You’re a bunch of stupid Shi’a.”

Insinuations of support for Hezbollah were made. “Who is Hassan Nasrallah?” they asked. “Do you like him?”

They demanded that L. hand over her iPhone — they knew that she had one. Fortunately, L., having a premonition that the attack might happen, had left it at home.

One man took her to her manager’s office and led the questioning. “I’m just like your father, and you are my daughter,” he began, gently. “Tell me what you know and I’ll try to help you.” He began to ask about her party affiliations and whether she supported the opposition.

“I’m a mother, an employee, and I’m not political,” L. insisted resolutely. “The only thing I care about is my kids.”

He questioned her about her family – where did her husband, father and brothers work? She told her interrogator that they were all small business owners.

“I don’t like you,” he said, beginning to turn nasty. “I don’t like you at all.”

L. thought she understood the subtext of the man’s comment: You have money — why are you against the government?

L. tried not to focus on the sounds of her colleagues being beaten and crying on the other side of the room, as her questioning continued.

“Did you go to Pearl Roundabout at all?”

“No,” L. lied.

He asked her next about her educational background.

“The more educated you are, the more trouble we get from you,” her interrogator sneered. L. remained silent. “I don’t like you at all, and because you’re not cooperating, I’ll get someone to beat you.”

Two dark-skinned women security forces, Bahrainis but perhaps of African descent L. thought, were brought in. Blows from their fists rained down on L.’s face, shoulders and back. Sharp kicks were delivered, and face-slapping to further humiliate. They dragged her back to her office, and several people began to open her office drawers, and opened her emails on her computer.

“We want to see how much is your salary,” one of them demanded. L. showed them a document on her computer. “You receive three times our wage, and you still hate your government?” They began to hit L. again, repeatedly, pulling her out in front of her colleagues as they punched her in the mouth, neck and shoulders. She could hear cries coming from every corner of the office, but L. was in too deep a state of shock to cry.

Two of her assailants grabbed her from under her arms and began to drag her down the steps to the 2nd floor.

“Stop hitting this cute girl, I like her,” one masked man leered. He put his arm around her to lead her downstairs himself, fondling her breast as he did.

On the 2nd floor, L. saw one of her fellow employees pushed against the wall as a large woman in a mask ripped off her abaya and tore her clothes so that her skin was exposed. “Come here and look at the white Shi’a meat!” the masked woman called out.

L. watched in horror as another fellow employee was dragged in front of her and pushed down the flight of stairs to the first floor — rolling the whole way down — and then pushed down another flight to the ground floor. When L. made it down to the ground floor herself, her colleague’s face was swollen and bloody beyond recognition.

Eleven women employees were gathered on one side of the entry foyer and around 35 men on the other — all Shi’a, most of whom worked in the Human Resources department. L. surmised that Shi’a in the HR department were specifically targeted because they had access to information about all the ministry departments.

The women sat on the ground of the entry way — “You don’t deserve to sit on government chairs!” – while the men on the other end of the foyer were forced to sit facing the wall, with their hands cuffed behind their backs. Dogs were brought in to sniff everybody. L. could see blood seeping through the white thobes of some of her male colleagues.

One man’s ghetra (the white head covering worn in traditional Gulf dress) was wrapped around his neck and used as a leash, forcing the man to crawl on all fours like a dog. “Stand up and dance!” he was ordered. He did so.

The assailants commanded the men to hang photos of King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa on the wall and to kiss them. The women were forced to hold photos of the king, prime minister and crown prince above their heads while shouting “Aash!”, long live the king.

“Sing the national anthem!” they were commanded, as they stood with the pictures above their heads. Anyone who stumbled over the words or forgot them was slapped or punched in the face.

******

I had a meeting to run to, so L. was not able to finish the story, though I knew it involved spending the night at the police station, and being sacked from her job along with half of the Ministry of Health’s Human Resources department.

As I packed up my notebook, L. related one more detail of her ordeal. One policewoman had approached her repeatedly in the foyer of the Ministry of Health. “Why don’t you love the king?” she asked L. “If you loved him, nothing bad would happen to you.” …source

Oil prices surge as Iranian embargo comes into force and violence escalates in Syria
01 July, 2012 – Arab Money

Oil prices jumped sharply on Friday, breaking a bear market lock on the market as the European Union and Australian ban on buying oil from Iran came into effect today, a ban that Iran has always said would result in the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Nymex crude surged nine per cent to $85-a-barrel on Friday, almost halving its decline this year.

The vital oil supply bottleneck in the Gulf of Arabia remained open today, although violence escalated in Syria with the attack on a funeral by the Syrian army leaving 85 dead.

Saudi up supplies

Saudi Arabia has raised oil supplies in recent months filling up stock piles around the world and has also re-opened old oil pipelines to the Red Sea bypassing the Strait of Hormuz for up to 20 per cent of its huge daily output.

The UAE for its part will open up a pipeline taking almost all its oil to Fujairah next month, bypassing the Arabian Gulf entirely. That said hydrocarbon exports from Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain would be vulnerable to any Iranian action.

In recent months the oil price has fallen sharply due in part to increased supply to offset the Iranian threat but also because of demand destruction by the slowdown in China and the recessionary conditions in Europe. The US economy has also grown less than expected.

Some commentators have even called this the start of a new, prolonged bear market for black gold with $100 oil having proven a turning point for alternatives like the development of shale gas in the US, although that has mainly acted to polaxe natural gas prices in North America not the price of gasoline for cars.

No bear market

ArabianMoney very much doubts oil is going into a real bear market. The loss of Iranian oil to global markets is the equivalent of Libya shutting down last year and much higher prices of oil were the direct result of that geopolitical event. …more

Bahrain’s al-Asalah Islamic Society blamed the U.S ambassador in Bahrain Thomas Krajeski for the spread in violence among the Kingdom’s dissidents groups, Al- Watan reported, citing a statement from the society.

The society, a leading Sunni formation in Bahrain, said that the ambassador’s “incorrect” reports and his inability to condemn “clearly and explicitly” the use of Molotov cocktails by protesters, in addition to the U.S. government’s pressure on Bahrain to release “convicted terrorist” has led to more violence against the state, the newspaper reported.

Bahraini MP Abdul Halim Murad told the daily that Krajeski is becoming “a threat to the national security of Bahrain and the Gulf.” …source