Posts from — December 2012

‘You have to demolish them while they’re small’ — Israel’s chief justice approves destruction of mosque
by Annie Robbins – 11 December, 2012 – Mondoweiss

Amira Hass wrote an important article in Haaretz yesterday about a gruesome phrase uttered by Israel’s new Supreme Court Chief Justice referencing the demolition of a mosque in the south Hebron Hills last week: “You have to demolish them while they’re small.”

On its face, the demolition was nothing extraordinary and what we’ve come to expect. But the destruction of this little mosque in the village of Al Mufaqara provides yet another example of how Regavim, a rising, extreme-national-religious social movement whose goal is to encourage the state to demolish Palestinian homes and public buildings, works in symmetry with Israel’s recently radicalized Supreme Court to escalate efforts to remove Palestine from the map.

This is about a new political constellation: Regavim, the Supreme Court, and the Knesset are working together to circumvent the law and cleanse the land. In the past, though the court acted to facilitate the land grab, it was still an instrument of legal recourse, and at times worked in Palestinians’ favor. But recent changes by the Knesset’s judicial selection committee are apparently being used to make the court a more activist component of the push to clear Palestinians from Area C.

Oddly, some Israeli supporters consider the words of the Chief Justice “a minor miracle.” Hass referenced the website Hakol Hayehudi (“The Jewish Voice,” whose tagline is “News for Happy Jews” ), which reported ‘rejoice’-ing at the judge’s phraseology.

I unearthed this same glee in an article at another site, the Jewish Press, which describes the mosque as an “ugly thing.” So let’s take a closer look at a ‘miracle’ and later, what it tells us about Israel’s annexation plans . …more

Bahrain opposition welcomes dialogue
11 December, 2012 – Jafria News

JNN 11 Dec 2012 Manama : Bahraini opposition groups have welcomed a recent call by Prince Salman bin Hamad bin Issa Al Khalifa for a national dialogue.

The opposition groups, led by al-Wefaq, said in a statement on Saturday that they “look favorably upon the appeal by the crown prince.” They also called for a “serious dialogue with agreement on the participants, agenda and duration.”

“The opposition is ready to take part in a dialogue whose result must be put to the people, the source of all powers. From the very beginning, the opposition has opted for peaceful means to gain democracy,” the statement added.

On Friday, the Bahraini prince called for dialogue with the opposition, saying only talks could solve the political unrest in Bahrain.

“I soon hope to see a meeting between all sides – and I call for a meeting between all sides – as I believe that only through face-to-face dialogue will any real progress be made,” he said in an address to a conference organized by the International Institute for Security Studies.

However, no opposition figures were invited to the conference.

The uprising in Bahrain began in mid-February 2011.

The Manama regime promptly launched a brutal crackdown on peaceful protests and called in Saudi-led Arab forces from neighboring states.

Dozens of people have been killed in the crackdown, and the security forces have arrested hundreds, including rights activists, doctors and nurses.

Bahraini demonstrators say they will continue holding anti-regime protests until their demand for the establishment of a democratically elected government is met. …more

Viral Justice: The MOI’s Continued Failure to Hold Police Accountable Despite Evidence
11 December, 2012 – Marc Owen Jones blog

On 9th December, the Ministry of the Interior announced that they would be launching an investigation into the brutal arrest of a young man in the village of Diraz. This announcement came after a video of the incident was distributed on Twitter and Facebook the day before. The video in question shows police hitting and slapping a young boy who is clearly subdued and under control.

Although continued police brutality (despite the government’s vociferous claims of reform) is hardly surprising, it is odd that the MOI should announce an investigation into the Diraz incident almost 3 months after the video first surfaced. Indeed, video evidence of the incident in question was first uploaded on 20th September.

Not viral? No ‘justice’

So why has it taken 3 months for the MOI to announce an investigation? Was whoever runs the MOI Twitter account absent the day the video was first posted? Given that the original video has about 66,000 hits, you’d think the police would be among those who had seen it (what with it being their job to investigate crime etc). In all fairness, I guess the police are more reluctant to investigate crime when they are the ones carrying it out. Maybe 66,000 hits isn’t enough to warrant an investigation? I mean, a video that showed police beating a man in Bani Jamrah got 86,000 hits, and the MOI described this as a ‘ viral video’. Maybe 80,000 is the cutoff point for defining something as viral/worthy of announcing an investigation into. Usually the MOI respond on Twitter to these ‘viral videos’ pretty soon after they occur. The usual format is to announce an investigation and then to say nothing more about it. Indeed, Fig 1 at the bottom of this post that documents incidents involving police criminality that the MOI have pledged to investigate. …more

Mumia: The Unsilenced Voice of a “Long-Distance Revolutionary”
10 December, 2012 – By Chris Hedges – Truthout.org

I am sitting in the visiting area of the SCI Mahanoy prison in Frackville, Pa., on a rainy, cold Friday morning with Mumia Abu-Jamal, America’s most famous political prisoner and one of its few authentic revolutionaries. He is hunched forward on the gray plastic table, his dreadlocks cascading down the sides of his face, in a room that looks like a high school cafeteria. He is talking intently about the nature of empire, which he is currently reading voraciously about, and effective forms of resistance to tyranny throughout history. Small children, visiting their fathers or brothers, race around the floor, wail or clamber on the plastic chairs. Abu-Jamal, like the other prisoners in the room, is wearing a brown jumpsuit bearing the letters DOC—for Department of Corrections.

Abu-Jamal was transferred in January to the general prison population after nearly 30 years in solitary confinement on death row and was permitted physical contact with his wife, children and other visitors for the first time in three decades. He had been sentenced to death in 1982 for the Dec. 9, 1981, killing of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner. His sentence was recently amended to life without parole. The misconduct of the judge, flagrant irregularities in his trial and tainted evidence have been criticized by numerous human rights organizations, including Amnesty International.

Abu-Jamal, who was a young activist in the Black Panthers and later one of the most important radical journalists in Philadelphia, a city that a few decades earlier produced I.F. Stone, has long been the bête noire of the state. The FBI opened a file on him when he was 15, when he started working with the local chapter of the Black Panthers. He was suspended from his Philadelphia high school when he campaigned to rename the school for Malcolm X and distributed “black revolutionary student power” literature.

Stephen Vittoria’s new film documentary about Abu-Jamal, “Long Distance Revolutionary,” rather than revisit the case, chronicles his importance and life as an American journalist, radical and intellectual under the harsh realities of Pennsylvania’s death row. Abu-Jamal has published seven books in prison, including his searing and best-selling “Live From Death Row.” The film features the voices of Cornel West, James Cone, Dick Gregory, Angela Davis, Alice Walker and others. It opens in theaters Feb. 1, starting in New York City. In the film Gregory says that Abu-Jamal has single-handedly brought “dignity to the whole death row.” …more

Is anyone wondering why the FBI took out Petraeus using a deranged whore and a shirtless FBI agent? Did Obama need to discredit Petraeus to get him out and shut him up about Obama and Clinton’s inept bumbling on foreign policy? Phlipn.

Al Qaeda in Syria
10 December, 2012 – NYT

The presence of rebel fighters in Syria that were trained and supported by Al Qaeda poses a serious problem for the United States and Western allies. The Nusra Front, an offshoot of Al Qaeda in Iraq, has become one of the most effective forces fighting against President Bashar al-Assad.

Mr. Obama has blacklisted the Nusra Front as a terrorist organization, which would make it illegal for Americans to have financial dealings with it. It makes sense to isolate the group and try to dry up its resources, but the designation by itself isn’t sufficient. American officials have to make a case directly to the countries or actors that are believed to be most responsible, either directly or as a conduit, for the weapons and other assistance to the Nusra Front: Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan. However much they may want to see Mr. Assad fall, they play a deadly game in empowering any affiliate of Al Qaeda, which though weakened, is dedicated to global jihad and the violent overthrow of Sunni monarchies.

The problem is that many Syrian rebel groups work closely with the Nusra Front precisely because its skilled fighters have been so effective at storming fortified Syrian positions and leading other battalions to capture military bases and oil fields.

Some say the terrorist designation could backfire by pitting the United States against the rebel forces. Others have argued that one way to marginalize the jihadi groups is for the United States to arm the moderate and secular rebel groups or even establish a no-fly zone that would forcibly ground the Syrian Air Force.

But the situation in Syria is extremely complicated, and President Obama’s caution in resisting military intervention is the right approach. As we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan, even after committing tens of thousands of troops, America’s ability to affect the course and outcome of armed conflict is decidedly limited.

Against the backdrop of war, the United Nations, the United States and some European officials are still promoting a negotiated deal to limit the bloodshed. Even if the warring sides were willing to abandon the fight, any deal would require Russian support, but talks between American and Russian officials over the weekend gave no sign that Moscow is prepared to abandon Mr. Assad. …source

Road Map Drawn Up by Syrian Traitors to Serve Imperialists, Gulf Monarchies
10 December, 2012 – By Noureddine Merdaci – Truthout

It will perhaps take months, if not years, before we will be able to reconstruct the process by which Syria found itself trapped in this civil war. Obviously, Damascus had not measured the danger, not only for the regime in power, but even for Syria itself, now in danger of disappearing as a nation-state. However, the veil begins to lift on the circumstances of the “conclave” held in Doha in early November, which saw a heterogeneous “opposition” – divided, without a program and without perspective – provide itself with a leader, Moez Ahmed al-Khatib, and a “coalition.”

But to achieve this, according to sources familiar with the matter, the Syrian “opponents” were ordered by Qatar to “find” an agreement, sine qua non, before leaving the room they were provided. This means that the “Syrian opposition” had a gun to its head, forcing it to reach this minimum agreement. Qatari Prime Minister, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber al-Thani, took a personal interest in the proceedings. In reality, the “revolt” in Syria, totally managed by foreign countries and their intelligence services, was a proxy war against the Syrian national state, a war which needed “Syrians at their service” only to serve as “local color.”

In Syria, it is fighters coming from many Arab countries, elements of al-Qaeda, jihadists from Afghanistan, Somalia and Pakistan – well-armed – who kill Syrian civilians and fight against the Syrian army alongside a handful of deserters. So, in Doha, it was necessary to “unify” the opposition, whose credibility was placed in question, even by one of its main sponsors, the United States, which has applied its full weight to restore a semblance of consistency and visibility to an opposition created completely by France, Qatar, and the United States in particular, and supported by Turkey, which “persuaded” NATO to install “Patriot” missiles on its territory – more precisely on the borders with Syria. Doha has been a refocusing of a rebellion that had not been able to achieve the goals ordered by its sponsors.

In fact, we can better understand the situation when we know the terms of the “Doha Protocol,” a document we have been able to consult, which contains the following 13 points:

1. Syria should reduce the number of soldiers of the Syrian army to 50,000;

2. Syria will assert its right to sovereignty over the Golan only by political means. Both parties will sign peace agreements under the auspices of the United States and Qatar;

3. Syria must get rid of, under the supervision of the United States, all its chemical and biological weapons and all of its missiles. This operation must be carried out on the land of Jordan;

4. To cancel any claim of sovereignty over Liwa Iskenderun (Alexandretta) and to withdraw in favor of Turkey from some border villages inhabited by Turkmens in “muhafazahs” in Aleppo and Idlib;

5. To expel all members of the Workers Party of Kurdistan, and to hand over those wanted by Turkey. This party should be added to the list of terrorist organizations;

6. To cancel all agreements and contracts signed with Russia and China in the fields of subsurface drilling and armaments;

7. To allow Qatari gas pipeline passage through the Syrian territory toward Turkey and then on to Europe;

8. To allow water pipes to pass through the Syrian territory from the Atatürk Dam to Israel;

9. Qatar and United Arab Emirates pledge to rebuild what has been destroyed by the war in Syria on the condition that their companies have the exclusive access to contracts for reconstruction and for exploitation of Syrian oil and gas;

10.To terminate relations with Iran, Russia and China;

11.To break off relations with Hezbollah and with Palestinian resistance movements;

12. The Syrian regime should be Islamic and not Salafi;

13. This agreement will come into effect as soon as power is taken ((Algerian) Editor’s note: by the “Opposition”).

This is the price of foreign pressures and of resignation and treachery on the part of Arab states. A high price, an exorbitant price for Syria that persons calling themselves “Syrian” have endorsed. Indeed, this agreement, or rather “Protocol,” is thus the price that the Syrian opposition will have to pay once installed in power in Damascus, as stated in Article 13 of the “Doha Agreement.”

In this way, each of the sponsors of the “revolt of the Syrian people” has helped himself according to his own interests and appetite. The United States, by disarming Syria and distancing the nation from its friends; Turkey, by retrieving Syrian villages and modifying the common borders according to its interests; Qatar, by being granted contracts for the “reconstruction” of the country; and Saudi Arabia, by the establishment of an Islamic regime of its devotion.

This is a virtual castration of Syria, to be stripped of its sovereignty just as Egypt was by the Camp David Agreements in 1979. Actually, it is as if the “opposition” – supported at arm’s length by Qatar – were to demand the immediate recognition of Israel, with, however, as in Article 2 of the Doha protocol, a negotiated settlement.

This is a sharing of Syrian hoard! Nowhere is there any question of democracy, freedom, human rights, building a new Syria in which the Syrians, whatever their ethnicity, religion and belief, enjoy the same rights. Instead, each of the “sponsors” served himself first, taking whatever he wanted.

For those who know the turbulent history of the Ottoman Middle East, everything is explained, and Doha was the point of no return for a Syrian opposition that no longer had a voice. It was only to justify the “syrianity” of the events. This was clearly seen in Cairo when the new “boss” of the “coalition,” Moez Ahmed al-Khatib, arrived in the baggage of Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber al-Thani for the Arab League meeting that took place in the mid-November.

In Syria, the scenario acted out for Libya is surpassed, and there is now danger of a general destabilization of the world, even that fragmentation for which American civilian “experts” and military have been working without interruption. We should consider this situation seriously!

Translated by Chrysanthie Therapontos, edited by Henry Crapo, translators for Humanité in English.

…source

Bahrain activist Nabeel Rajab’s prison sentence reduced
11 December, 2012 – BBC

An appeals court in Bahrain has reduced the prison sentence handed to prominent human rights activist Nabeel Rajab from three years to two.

The court upheld Mr Rajab’s conviction of encouraging “illegal gatherings”.

His lawyer, Mohammed al-Jishi, told AP news agency that he had been cleared of a charge of insulting police.

Mr Rajab, head of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights, has been a leader of the pro-democracy protests which have rocked the kingdom since February 2011.

The 48-year-old is also one of the most well-known activists in the Arab world, with more than 185,000 followers on Twitter.

Mr Rajab’s wife, Sumaya, said she had spoken to him briefly in court on Tuesday after the appeal against his conviction was rejected.

“He told me he was not expecting two years. He was thinking that they would release him,” she told the BBC.

Mr Rajab was originally sentenced to a year on each of three identical charges but in two cases the sentences were cut in half.

Joe Stork of Human Rights Watch called the decision “bizarre”.

“The Bahraini judiciary is extremely politicised,” he said, noting the pressure that international human rights groups have put on the government to release Mr Rajab and other political prisoners.

“They gave an inch to international concern but Nabeel Rajab is still facing two years in jail, punished for exercising his right to freedom of association.”

On Sunday, US Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner urged the authorities to “drop charges against all persons accused of offenses involving non-violent political expression and freedom of assembly”.

The next day, another activist, Zainab al-Khawaja, was sentenced a month in prison for entering the “prohibited area” of the former site of Manama’s Pearl Roundabout – the focus of last year’s unrest. …source

Bahrain Sentences Opposition Leaders on Charges of Freedom of Expression
9 December, 2012 – Bahrain Freedom Movement

(Ahlul Bayt News Agency) – On the 28th of November, 2012, the higher court of appeal reduced the sentence of the General Secretary of the Islamic Action Society (Amal) Sheikh Mohammed Ali al-Mahfoodh, to 5 years in prison, one year after a military court sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment on the 4th of October, 2011.

An additional three members of the same society had their military sentences reduced from 10 to 5 years in prison, five members had their sentences reduced from 5 years to either 1 year, 6 months, or 1 month, and these five individuals were therefore released for having completed their sentences.

In addition, Shaikh AbdulAdheem AlMuhtadi, who was accused in the same case and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment by the military court, has been acquitted after spending nearly 2 years in prison.

The charges against these opposition leaders included: “Promoting the overthrow of the government by force and illegal means, and resort to marches and rally the crowds to resist the authorities, and incitement to refrain from work.”

These charges are solely based on the coerced confessions of the defendants, which were made during a time when the authorities used torture as a means to extract false confessions. This has been well documented in the Bahraini Independent Commission of Inquiry report (BICI).

The daughter of Amal General Secretary, Al-Mahfoodh says that while in detention, her father was tortured, electrocuted, and whipped so badly she could barely recognize him when she saw him for first time several weeks after his arrest.

Throughout the appeal trial sessions, the defendants repeatedly informed the court of the torture they were subject to.

The defendants stated that they were tortured by Bahraini and Jordanian officers, and that there were nurses and doctors who were responsible for checking the pulse of the tortured defendant to advise the officers on whether they could continue the torture when the victim collapsed.

Witnesses have informed the court of the beating of the defendants at time of their arrest. Although the court formed a medical committee to examine the defendants, the court has avoided conducting a full investigation into these allegations of torture.

Hisham AlSabagh, a representative of the Amal Society has stated that there are approximately 200 individuals who are involved with the society currently detained in prison. The opposition society, which was licensed since 2005, was unjustly dissolved by a court ruling in July 2012.

While the BCHR welcomes the acquittal of one defendant in the case, the BCHR stresses the fact that all the defendants should be acquitted and released immediately as their charges are directly related to the exercise of their freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

The prosecution has failed to provide any evidence of the use of violence by the opposition leaders in this case.

Several more opposition leaders are serving long-term prison sentences, including the General Secretary of the National Democratic Work Society, Ebrahim Sherif, who was sentenced to 5 years by a military court last year, and whose appeal was rejected in September 2012.

Based on the above, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights calls for the following:

• Release all the prisoners of conscience where the ruling was made in a court that lacks transparency and independence, and particularly the opposition leaders who were targeted for the practice of the freedom of expression and freedom of assembly in accordance with the universal declaration of human rights.

• Comply with the recommendations made in the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry report, and especially the recommendations that indicate the necessity of investigating torture allegations and prosecuting those responsible for it, especially in the National Security Apparatus.

• Hold accountable all those involved in the National (Military) Safety Courts for the human rights violations committed against the defendants. …source

Bahrain: Washington and London Endorse Dialogue With Tyrants, War Criminals and Torturers
by AIM – 3 August 2011 – Ahlulbayt Islamic Mission

Washington and London have both endorsed the Al Khalifas’ “dialogue and reform efforts” to give cover to their client regime

Efforts by the US and British-backed Bahraini regime to repair its international image over human rights violations are in tatters with the revelation that senior members of the oil kingdom’s royal family have been personally involved in torturing hundreds of civilian detainees, including doctors and nurses.

One of the torturers-in-chief is Captain Nasser Al Khalifa, son of the king. He graduated this year “with honours” from the US Marine Corps University at Qantico, Washington.

This criminal rule by inner-circle members of the House of Al Khalifa also exposes Washington and London’s efforts to positively talk up reforms and dialogue by their Persian Gulf ally as a cynical sham. In Libya and Syria, war and sanctions are declared against alleged human rights abusers. But in Bahrain, Washington and London say pro-democracy protesters must embrace the rulers’
so-called initiative for national dialogue.

Revelations of royal family brutality in Bahrain also make a mockery of King Hamad’s announcement last month of an “independent” human rights probe into violations that took place during the Western-backed Saudi-led military invasion of the oil-rich kingdom earlier this year.

Yet again Washington and London had trumpeted this move as a positive step to reform in the Gulf kingdom, where a minority unelected Sunni elite has ruled over a majority Shia population for 40 years since nominal independence from Britain in 1971.

But how can such a regime be taken seriously for investigating crimes against humanity when the perpetrators of those crimes are senior members of the regime? Since the popular and peaceful uprising against the US and British-backed monarchy began in mid-February, nearly 40 unarmed civilians have been killed by state forces. The head of the armed services is Supreme Commander King Hamad.

The king’s other son by his second of four marriages, Shaikh Khalid, is also named as being personally involved in meting out torture to prisoners. Shaikhs Khalid and Nasser are half brothers of Crown Prince Salman, who was greeted in Washington by President Barack Obama last month when he announced Bahrain’s “national dialogue” and “political reforms”.

The Crown Prince told media then after his White House meeting: “I fully share the President’s outlook concerning respect for universal human rights and the continuance of Bahrain’s process of meaningful reform.”

In stark contrast to such rhetoric about respecting universal human rights, many former Bahraini detainees described to Global Research a litany of brutalities that they endured at the hands of senior members of the Al Khalifa regime. The victims have told how they were punched, kicked and whipped and made to stand for days continuously without sleep. If they fell over from exhaustion, they would be kicked and punched and forced to resume standing.

Prisoners were routinely blindfolded, electrocuted, suspended from ceilings with handcuffs, or trussed like chickens on a metal pole and left to hang for prolonged periods. In many instances, former inmates said they or members of their families were threatened with rape if they did not sign confessions to scripted crimes.

Most of the torture is believed to have taken place in the underground cells of the Ministry of Interior headquarters – al Qala – in the capital, Manama. The king’s sons were present during interrogations and were personally involved in torture sessions, according to former detainees in independent testimonies. Other members of the Al Khalifa entourage are accused of participating in gross maltreatment of prisoners. They include high-ranking officers in the Bahrain Defence Forces.

One senior royal family member in particular with blood on her hands is Shaikha Noura Al Khalifa, who is a Ministry of Interior officer. Her precise relation to King Hamad is not clear, but she is one of the regime inner-circle. She is said to have overseen the torture of female detainees, including teachers, students, doctors and nurses.

One released female detainee told how she was blindfolded, beaten on the head and verbally abused. “I was called a dirty Shia whore,” she said.

The former detainee said her interrogators would refer deferentially to the torturer-in-chief present in the room by her royal title “shaikha”. At one point, the prisoner’s blindfold slipped off and she said she recognised the royal.

Other former female prisoners told how they were subjected to similar physical and mental trauma conducted by Shaikha Noura. Bahraini prison sources have told Global Research that the 20-year-old female poet Ayat Al Qurmezi, who was released last week from a one-year sentence, was also subjected to torture by the same royal. …more

Bahrain tries 8 policemen for torturing detainees
AFP – 10 December, 2012 – ahramonline

Bahrain’s public prosecution said Monday it charged eight policemen with torturing detainees in the wake of last year’s crackdown on Shiite-led protests.

“Five cases have been referred to special courts after charging eight policemen, including a lieutenant,” the prosecution said in a statement carried by the BNA state news agency.

The charges range from “using torture to force a defendant to confess, to causing a permanent disability, as well as insults and physical assaults,” the statement said.

In September, a policeman was jailed seven years for killing a protester during the month-long protests that were brutally quelled in mid-March 2011.

The authorities say they are implementing the recommendations of an independent commission of inquiry called for by the king that confirmed allegations of excessive use of force by security forces during the uprising against the Sunni ruling dynasty.

Home to the US Fifth Fleet and strategically situated across the Gulf from Iran, Bahrain still witnesses sporadic Shiite-led demonstrations, mostly outside the capital.

According to the International Federation for Human Rights, around 80 people have been killed in Bahrain since the violence began on February 14, 2011. …source

The unidentified projects reference “bullshit”, make believe and oil with no known means of extraction

Al Nusrah Front, foreign jihadists seize key Syrian base in Aleppo
By Bill Roggio – 10 December, 2012

The Al Nusrah Front for the People of the Levant, an al Qaeda-linked jihadist group that is fighting Bashir al Assad’s regime in Syria, and allied jihadist groups took control of the last major Syrian Army base in western Aleppo after a two-month-long siege. The base is believed to be involved in Syria’s chemical weapons program.

The Sheikh Suleiman base, or Base 111, fell to the Al Nusrah Front and “several Islamist rebel battalions linked to it,” a representative of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights told AFP. Foreign fighters are also said to have played a key role in the assault that led to the fall of the Sheikh Suleiman base, while nearby units of the Free Syrian Army stood by and watched.

“Many of the fighters were from other Arab countries and Central Asia,” AFP said, based on observations from one of its reporters who covered the area. An estimated 300 to 400 Syrian soldiers defended the base before it fell to the jihadist alliance. Al Qaeda’s black flag of jihad was raised over one of the buildings on the base as the fighting took place.

The two other Islamist groups who fought alongside Al Nusrah were identified as the Mujahedeen Shura Council and the Muhajireen group, according to The Associated Press. The term muhajireen means emigrants, a strong indication that many of its fighters are from outside of Syria.

Some of the fighters who took the base are non-Syrian. One of the leaders involved in the battle to take the base identified himself to AFP as Abu Talha and said he was from Uzbekistan. Other foreign fighters said, “We are all mujahedeens and muhajireens.”

Captured base said to be part of Syria’s chemical weapons program

The Sheikh Suleiman base is rumored to be involved in the Assad regime’s chemical weapons program. The base “contained a clandestine scientific research whose purpose was unknown even to the rank and file,” AFP reported in late November, based on a claim from a soldier who defected.

US officials have expressed concern that the Syrian government has been preparing to use chemical weapons against the rebels after suffering a string of defeats throughout the country. The US is also training Syrian rebels in Jordan to secure chemical weapons sites in the event that the Assad regime falls, CNN reported.

The Syrian government has warned that rebels may also use chemical weapons after the Al Nusrah Front took control control of a chlorine factory in Aleppo last week.

Islamists hold sway over new rebel military command

The fall of the Sheikh Suleiman base to jihadist forces took place just days after the supposedly secular rebels established a joint military command that is dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood and individuals linked to the various Salafist-jihadist groups.

“Its composition, estimated to be two-thirds from the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies, reflects the growing strength of Islamist fighters on the ground and resembles that of the civilian opposition leadership coalition created under Western and Arab auspices in Qatar last month, France 24 reported.

Senior military officers who defected from the Assad regime as well as military commanders opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists were excluded from the joint command.

The Al Nusrah Front’s position on the newly established joint military command is unclear. In mid-November, the Al Nusrah Front and 13 other jihadist groups based in Aleppo rejected the Western-backed National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, and instead called for the establishment of an Islamic state.

“We declare our legitimate rejection of what came to be called the ‘national alliance.’ An agreement has been reached to establish a just Islamic State and to reject any foreign project, alliances or councils that are forced on us domestically from any entity, whatever it is,” according to a statement that was translated by the SITE Intelligence Group

…more

Thierry Meyssan: “Syrian terrorists were trained by the KLA in Kosovo”
by Thierry Meyssan – Voltaire Network – 10 December 2012

[excerpt]
Geopolitika: Mr. Meyssan, what is the current situation in Syria, the situation on the front and the situation in the Syrian society? Are Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as well as Western countries who want to violently topple the political system of President Bashar Assad, close to fulfilling their goal?

Thierry Meyssan: Of the 23 million Syrians about two to two and a half million support armed groups trying to destabilize the country and weaken his army. They took control of several cities and vast rural areas. In no case will these armed groups be able to overthrow the regime.

The plan provided that the initial Western terrorist actions would create a cycle of provocation / repression justifying international intervention on the model of the KLA terrorism and repression by Slobodan Milosevic, followed by the NATO intervention. By the way it has been attested to that fighting groups in Syria were trained in terrorism by members of the KLA on Kosovo.

This plan failed because Vladimir Putin’s Russia is not that of Boris Yeltsin. Moscow and Beijing have interdicted NATO intervention and since then the situation has stagnated.

Geopolitika: What do the United States, France, Britain, Saudi Arabia and Qatar hope to accomplish by toppling President al-Assad?

Thierry Meyssan: Each member state of the coalition has its own interest in this war and believes it can be satisfied, even though these interests are sometimes contradictory.

At the political level, there is the desire to break the “Axis of Resistance to Zionism” (Iran-Iraq-Syria-Hezbollah-Palestine). There is also the desire to continue the “remodeling of the broader Middle East.”

But the most important issues are economic: huge reserves of natural gas have been discovered in the south-eastern Mediterranean. The center of this deposit is near Homs in Syria (more precisely, à Qara).

Geopolitika: Could you tell us a bit more about the rebellion of Al Qaeda in Syria, whose relations with the United States are contradictory to say the least, if you look at their actions on the ground? You said in an interview that the relationship between Abdelhakim Belhadj and NATO were almost institutionalized. For whom is Al-Qaeda really waging war?

Thierry Meyssan: Al-Qaeda was originally nothing but the name of a database, a computer file, listing the names of the Arab mujahideen sent to fight in Afghanistan against the Soviets. By extension, Al-Qaeda refers to the jihadist milieu in which these mercenaries were recruited. Then Al-Qaeda designated fighters around bin Laden and by extension, all groups in the world who claim bin Laden’s ideology.

According to the times and the needs, this movement has been more or less populated. During the first war in Afghanistan, the war in Bosnia and Chechnya wars, these mercenaries were “freedom fighters” as they fought against the Slavs. Then, during the second war in Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq, they were “terrorists” because they were attacking the GI’s. After the official death of bin Laden, they have again become “freedom fighters” during the wars in Libya and Syria because they are fighting alongside NATO.

In reality, these mercenaries have always been controlled by the Sudeiris’ clan, the pro-US and arch-reactionary faction of the Saudi Royal Family, and more specifically by Prince Bandar bin Sultan. The latter, whom George Bush Sr. has always presented as his “adopted son” (that is to say, as an intelligent boy he would have liked to have fathered) has ceased to act on behalf of the CIA. Even when Al-Qaida GIs fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, it was still in the best interest of the United States because it could justify their military presence.

It turns out that in recent years, Libyans have become the majority in Al-Qaeda. NATO naturally used them to overthrow the regime of Muammar al-Gaddafi. Once this was done, they named the number two organization, Abdelhakim Belhaj, military governor of Tripoli, although he is wanted by Spanish justice for his alleged responsibility for the Madrid bombings. Subsequently, they transferred his men to fight in Syria. For their transport, the CIA used the resources of the High Commissioner for Refugees thanks to Ian Martin, Special Representative of Ban Ki-Moon in Libya. The so-called refugees were taken to Turkey to camps which served as a rear base from which to attack Syria. Access to these camps was forbidden to Turkish parliamentarians and the press.

Ian Martin is also known to your readers: he was Secretary General of Amnesty International, and representative of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Geopolitika: Syria is the location not only of a civil war, but also the site of a media war and of manipulations. We ask you as a direct witness, someone who has been on the ground, what really happened in Homs and Hula?

Thierry Meyssan: I am not a direct witness to what happened in Houla. However, I’ve served as a trusted third party in negotiations between the Syrian and French authorities during the siege of the Islamic Emirate of Baba Amr. Jihadists were entrenched in this area of ​​Homs from which they had expelled infidels (Christians) and heretics (Shiites). In fact, only forty Sunni families were left behind amongst about 3,000 fighters. The latter had introduced sharia, and a “revolutionary court” sentenced more than 150 to have their throats publicly slit.

This self-proclaimed Emirate was secretly managed by French officers. Syrian authorities wanted to avoid a direct assault and so they negotiated with the French authorities for the insurgents to surrender. Ultimately, the French were able to leave the city by night and fled to Lebanon, while loyalist forces entered the Emirate and the fighters surrendered. A bloodbath was avoided, there were less than 50 killed during the operation.

Geopolitika: Apart from the Alawites, Christians are also targeted in Syria. Could you tell us a bit more about the persecution of Christians in this country and why the so-called Western civilization, whose roots are Christian, shows no solidarity with fellow believers?

Thierry Meyssan: The jihadists pick on those who are closest to them: first the progressive Sunni and Shia (including Alawites) and only then followed by Christians. Generally, they torture and kill only a few Christians. On the other hand, they systematically expell them and steal their possessions. In the region near the border with northern Lebanon, the Free Syrian Army gave the Christians a week to flee. We witnessed a brutal exodus of 80,000 people. Those who did not flee in time were massacred.

Christianity was founded by Saint Paul in Damascus. Syrian communities predate those of the West. They have retained their ancient rites and their extremely strong faith. Most are Orthodox. Those who are attached to Rome have retained their ancestral rites. During the Crusades, the Christians of the East fought with other Arabs against the soldiers sent by the Pope. Today, they are fighting with their countrymen against jihadists sent by NATO.

[Read more →]

Bahraini activist jailed for “inciting hatred”
10 December, 2012 – Al Akhbar

A prominent Bahraini rights activist has been arrested on charges of “inciting hatred against the regime” after attempting to visit a hospital patient shot in the face by riot police, her friends announced Monday.

Bahrain’s public prosecution office on Monday told Zainab al-Khawaja that she will spend at least one week in prison pending an investigation over the charges after she was arrested over the weekend during a visit to Salmaniya Hospital to check up on a patient.

A court had already sentenced Khawaja to one month in prison and fined her 100 Bahraini dinars ($265) earlier on Monday for participating in a non-sanctioned demonstration in Manama’s Pearl Square in February.

Khawaja, who is widely known by her Twitter pseudonym Angry Arabiya, faces three additional court verdicts this month over participation in anti-government protests in the wake of Bahrain’s massive uprising last year.

She had previously served a one-month prison sentence in May and two-month term in September and October over charges related to her activism.

She is the daughter of a leading human rights defender also behind bars. Her father, Hadi al-Khawaja, is serving a life sentence over charges of “plotting against the state.”

Khawaja’s latest arrest in Bahrain’s main hospital occurred after briefly visiting 20-year-old Aqeel Abdul Mohsen. Abdul Mohsen suffers a shattered jaw after police shot him during an anti-government rally last Wednesday in the town of Bani Jamra.

…source

Mosques Under Construction Re-Demolished by Authorities in Bahrain
09 December, 2012 – Bahrain Center for Human Rights

The Bahrain Center for Human Rights expresses concern over the continued attacks on religious freedom represented in the re-demolishing of Shia mosques, which have been under construction since they were initially attacked and demolished during the government crack-down in 2011.

On December 1st, 2012, government bulldozers demolished four mosques for the second time; no notification was given to the people nor to the municipalities representative. These mosques belong to the Shia sect in the Hamad Town, and were under construction at the time. These four mosques are among the approximately 35 mosques that were demolished in 2011 during the intensive crackdown that followed the pro-democracy protests (for more details on demolished mosques in 2011 see: bahrainrights.org/en/node/4295 ). Although the government promised to rebuild the demolished mosques, following to the release of the BICI report in Nov 2011, it has not taken any concrete steps for the implementation of their plans. However, citizens have taken the initiative to start the construction process of these mosques in the same area where they were formerly located.

The four re-demolished mosques are:

1 Al-Imam AlSajad Mosque, located in Karzakan

2 Fadak AlZahra Mosque, located in Hamad Town R2, There has been formal communication between the municipality and the ministry of Islamic affairs that the land has been assigned to the mosque (2008/2010)

3 Abu Talib Mosque, located in Hamad Town R19, Had a building permit and formal authorization to put a temporary cabin on location (prior to April 2011)

4 Imam Hasan AlAskari Mosque, located in Hamad Town R22, On private land, had a construction permit, Had a formal authorization to put a temporary cabin on location (prior to April 2011)

A sign was placed next to the “AlSajad Mosque” (so photo on the top), which had the name of the Ministry of Justice and the Jaffari Waqf, and stated its intentions for a project to re-construct the mosque. However, the sign was ignored, and the government’s bulldozers took down the walls of the under-construction mosque. …more

Is the U.S. Congress Starting to Get Its Human Rights Mojo Back?
By Adotei Akwei – 10 December, 2012- Amnesty International

Late last week, Congress reclaimed some of its human rights mojo when the bi-partisan Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission (TLHRC) announced its new Defending Freedoms Project. The TLHRC was established in 1983 by the late Rep. Thomas Lantos, the only Holocaust survivor to have served in Congress.

The project kicked off with the TLHRC co-chairmen Frank R. Wolf adopting Chinese human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng and James P. McGovern taking on the case of jailed Bahraini human rights activist Nabeel Rajab.

The goal of this new partnership is to increase respect for religious freedom and other human rights around the world through a focus on individual cases of human rights defenders and those who have been unjustly imprisoned for exercising their human rights. Members of Congress will “adopt” at least one political prisoner, using their clout to highlight each case and push for an end to the human rights violations to which the highlighted individual is being subjected.

The launch of the Defending Freedoms project coincides with Amnesty’s annual Write#4rights, when AI members around the world will write letters to highlight the plight of individuals who are at risk for simply expressing themselves and seeking to enjoy their human rights.

By working on behalf of behalf of political prisoners, including prisoners of conscience, participating members of Congress will also encourage countries to draft laws and adopt policies protecting freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom from torture and ill-treatment, the right to a fair trial and other universal human rights.

The launch took place a day before a report by Amnesty International was released detailing increasing attacks against human rights defenders in Latin America, just one stark reminder of the need for leadership and an increased focus on human rights by the United States and the international community.

The Lantos Commission, US Commission for International Religious Freedom and AIUSA hope to grow this initiative and pair more congressional offices with prisoners of conscience to advocate publicly for their release and push for systemic reforms. …source

Bahrain: Shiite clerics must ‘prohibit’ violence
AP – 7 December, 2012

MANAMA, Bahrain (AP) — Bahrain’s Shiite religious leaders must more forcefully denounce violence as a key step to ease the kingdom’s 22-month uprising, the country’s crown prince said Friday at the opening of an international security conference.

The appeal by Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa underscores the view of Bahrain’s Sunni monarchy that Shiite clerics should be held partly responsible for rising violence in the strategic Gulf nation. It also suggests authorities could increase pressure on top Shiite clergymen, whom he referred to as ‘ayatollahs’ — a term more often associated with senior religious figures in rival Iran.

“I call on all those who disagree with the government, including the ayatollahs, to condemn violence on the street unequivocally . And more, to prohibit violence,” the crown prince told policymakers and political figures gathered for the annual two-day conference known as the Manama Dialogue. “Responsible leadership is called for and I believe dialogue is the only way forward,” he added.

More than 55 people have died in the unrest since February 2011, when Bahrain’s majority Shiites escalated a long-simmering drive for a greater political voice in the Sunni-ruled country.

The monarchy has offered some concessions, including giving the elected parliament expanded powers. But it falls far short of Shiite demands to loosen the Sunni rulers’ controls over key government appointments and policies.

Shiite religious leaders, including the most senior cleric Sheik Isa Qassim, have never publicly endorsed violence, but have encouraged peaceful anti-government protests to challenge authorities. Breakaway groups during demonstrations often clash with riot police.

The conference includes high-level envoys from Bahrain’s Western allies, which have so far stood behind the kingdom’s leadership but are increasingly troubled by rising violence and continued crackdowns on the opposition. The U.S. delegation is led by Deputy Secretary of State William Burns and includes Arizona Sen. John McCain.

The crown prince thanked a host of nations for assistance during the crisis, but noticeably did not refer to the U.S. in his remarks — an omission that underlined the two countries’ increasingly strained ties. He criticized nations that “selectively” criticize Bahrain’s leadership, without citing specific countries.

Washington has called for dialogue in Bahrain, but sharply condemned its leaders’ decision late last month to ban political rallies. The country hosts the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet, the Pentagon’s main hub against Iran’s rising military profile in the Gulf.

Earlier, the leaders of Bahrain’s main opposition group urged participants at the summit to press Bahraini officials to open wide-ranging talks.

Sheik Ali Salman told thousands of supporters that the international envoys should push Bahrain’s rulers to recognize the “demands of the people” and open negotiations. …source

US tightens military noose around Syria
by Bill Van Auken – WSWS

Amid an escalating drumbeat about a supposed threat that Syria’s government is preparing to use chemical weapons against its own people, Washington has deployed a naval armada off the country’s coast.

The USS Eisenhower carrier strike group was sent through the Suez Canal from its deployment in the Persian Gulf earlier this week and has reportedly arrived in the Mediterranean near Syrian shores. The deployment joins that of an amphibious battle group already present in the eastern Mediterranean, consisting of the USS Iwo Jima, the USS New York and the USS Gunston Hall, which together carry a contingent of 2,500 US Marines.

Between the two naval forces, Washington now has 17 warships, 70 fighter-bombers and 10,000 military personnel within close striking distance of Syria. This is in addition to the Air Force’s 39th Air Base Wing stationed at the Incirlik base in Turkey together with tens of thousands of US ground troops deployed in Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.

Citing US military sources, the Times of London reported Wednesday that Washington is ready to launch a military attack on Syria “within days.”

“It won’t require major movement to make action happen,” an unnamed US official told the British newspaper. “The muscle is already there to be flexed.”

Pentagon sources have suggested that an intervention carried out on the pretext of securing Syria’s chemical weapons would require some 75,000 troops.

In a further threat of direct US-NATO intervention, NATO governments are moving ahead to implement Tuesday’s decision of the NATO foreign ministers conference to deploy Patriot missile batteries on Turkey’s border with Syria. Germany’s defense and foreign ministers announced a decision to deploy some 400 German troops on the border. Similar detachments will also be sent by the US and the Netherlands.
While Turkey claimed it needed the missiles to defend itself from a supposed threat that Syria would fire missiles carrying chemical weapons towards its border, the Patriot batteries could also be used to impose a de facto “no-fly zone” over northern Syria, allowing the US-backed “rebels” to consolidate control over territory and creating the conditions for the installation of a Western-backed government on Syrian soil.
US officials have reiterated threats made by President Barack Obama and others in the administration about the government of President Bashar al-Assad crossing a “red line” and facing military action if it uses chemical weapons.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta Thursday described the US administration as “very concerned that as the opposition advances, in particular on Damascus, that the regime might very well consider the use of chemical weapons.”

Panetta referred to unspecified intelligence as the cause of these supposed concerns. Media outlets like the New York Times, CNN and NBC News have trumpeted this “intelligence,” citing unnamed US officials as the sources for vague and often contradictory accounts of developments that have allegedly pointed toward a potential use of chemical weapons in Syria.

Syria’s deputy foreign minister, Faisal Maqdad, charged Thursday that the allegation made by the US and other NATO countries about Syria’s chemical weapons were designed to create a “pretext for any subsequent interventions.”

“Syria stresses again, for the tenth, the hundredth time, that if we had such weapons, they would not be used against its people,” said Maqdad in an interview with Lebanon’s Al Manar television.

Speaking at the NATO foreign ministers meeting in Brussels, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accused Washington and its allies of manufacturing the alleged chemical weapons threat.

“As soon as we get these rumors [about chemical weapons] we engage in constructive demarche; when we get confirmation that nothing of that type is happening we share this information with our American colleagues,” Lavrov told the media.

There are no grounds to grant any credibility to the claims made by Washington and its media servants in presenting a supposedly imminent threat of a chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government as a trigger for war.

To the extent that there is any genuine content to these claims, it was expressed on Wednesday by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who declared that Washington was concerned “that an increasingly desperate Assad regime might turn to chemical weapons, or might lose control of them to one of the many groups that are now operating within Syria.”

The statement raised for the first time the prospect that the real threat in Syria is that the so-called rebels that the US and its allies are backing could overrun Syrian military facilities and capture chemical weapons.

Citing unnamed US officials, CNN reported on Wednesday that the US State Department is preparing to add Jabhat al-Nusra, a Syrian Islamist militia that is playing the leading role in the military campaign against the Assad government, to its list of “Foreign Terrorist Organizations.”
According to recent reports, the Al Qaeda-connected al-Nusra militia has fielded as many as 10,000 fighters, many of them foreign Islamists who have been funneled into Syria. The group is said to be the best-armed element waging the war for regime change and is credited with recently overrunning two Syrian military bases.

Much of the weaponry going to the group has reportedly been sent in by the US-backed monarchy in Qatar. The CIA set up a command-and-control headquarters in southern Turkey earlier this year to coordinate the distribution of these arms and other aid going to the “rebels.”
The designation of the al-Nusra militia as a terrorist organization would no doubt be meant to publicly distance Washington from the Al Qaeda elements upon which it has relied to wage the sectarian civil war to oust Assad. It would amount to a damning self-indictment, however, with the US government effectively making a formal admission that it has been supporting a terrorist war in Syria, replete with suicide bombings and sectarian massacres.

One reason for the pending terrorist designation is to pave the way for the US and its allies to intervene more directly in arming the “rebels,” while claiming to distinguish between “secular-democratic” elements—found largely in luxury hotels in Doha—and Islamist militias, which are bearing the brunt of the US-backed war.

Such a move is likely in conjunction with a “Friends of Syria” meeting to be held in Marrakech, Morocco next week in which Washington may join with its NATO allies in recognizing a new “rebel” front—the National Coalition for the Opposition Forces—which was cobbled together under the direction of the US State Department.

In a related development, the New York Times published a front-page article Thursday that cited unnamed US officials explaining that in last year’s war for regime change in Libya, “the Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar” that resulted in “turning some of these weapons over to Islamic militants.” The newspaper said that evidence had yet to emerge that these weapons were used in last September’s assault on the US consulate and a secret CIA facility in Benghazi that killed the US ambassador and three other Americans.

There is little new in the article, which stresses that the Libyan experience “has taken on new urgency as the administration considers whether to play a direct role in arming rebels in Syria, where weapons are flowing in from Qatar and other countries.”

No doubt underlying these reports and maneuvers are bitter divisions within the US military-intelligence apparatus over the tactics being pursued in the wars for regime change, first in Libya and now in Syria. It would be surprising if elements within the American military did not have serious reservations about a policy founded on the US arming and supporting of forces tied to Al Qaeda.

However, an examination of the trajectory of US policy in the Middle East points to a definite relationship between Washington’s attempts to assert its hegemony by military means and Al Qaeda that is sharply at odds with the official narrative of the “war on terrorism.”

Over the past decade, every regime targeted by US imperialism for military overthrow in the Middle East, from Iraq to Libya to Syria, has been hostile to Al Qaeda and the Islamist agenda. In each of these countries, Islamist and Al Qaeda-linked forces had no real power until the US intervened. The principal target for US militarism, Iran, is a nation whose population is composed predominantly of Shiite Muslims, who have been targeted for attack by Al Qaeda elements in Iraq and elsewhere.

The motivation for military action against these countries has not been to further a “war on terror,” much less to promote democracy or humanitarianism, but rather to assert US hegemony over an oil-rich and strategically vital region of the world.

To the extent that there is a genuine issue regarding chemical weapons in Syria, it is because the Obama administration has backed a “rebel” force that is dominated by Al Qaeda-linked militias into whose hands these weapons may fall, posing the threat that they may be used in terrorist attacks elsewhere. …source

Saudi Arabia commits War Crime by Forced Use of Prisoners in Syria Insurgency
10 December, 2012 – nsnbc

SA Forced Use of PrisonersAn official and classified Saudi Arabian document reveals that the government of Saudi Arabia releases its most dangerous prisoners who are sentenced to death under the condition that they take part in the attempted subversion in Syria. The practice constitutes a serious war crime. Earlier in 2012 PRESS TV and Al Alam journalist Maya Naser was assassinated shortly after he began investigating the same crime being committed by Turkish authorities.

The official, classified document shows that the authorities of Saudi Arabia have ordered the release of a group of the most dangerous criminals who have been sentenced to death in exchange for going to fight in Syria. Prior to their deployment to Syria the convicts are to be trained in unconventional warfare, terrorism, or in what is euphemistically described as Jihad.

The group of convicts includes 105 Yemeni, 21 Palestinian, 212 Saudi, 96 Sudanese, 254 Syrian, 82 Jordanian, 68 Somali, 32 Afghan, 194 Egyptian, 203 Pakistani, 23 Iraqi and 44 Kuwaiti citizens. It is unlikely that this group is the only such group that is going to be deployed from Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia´s release of convicts with death sentences is a gross violation of the Geneva Conventions which among other regulate the wartime rights of civilian and military prisoners. Their deployment to Syria is likely to constitute forced use of prisoners and could potentially lead to a prosecution of the Saudi government at the International Criminal Court in The Haag.

According to the US Special Forces Training Circular TC 18-01 the US military will for the foreseeable future be predominantly involved in irregular warfare. (1) Post 25th NATO Summit NATO doctrine, which describes the illegal war on Libya as teachable moment and model for future interventions has underpinned this tendency. (2) It is thus not surprising that Saudi Arabia is not the sole country within the anti-Syria alliance that deploys convicts.

In September 2012 PRESS TV and AL Alam journalist Maya Naser was killed by snipers in Damascus when he reported from the scene of two bomb blasts in Damascus. According to reliable sources the snipers have been positioned two hours before the blasts. It is highly probable that the targetting of Maya Naser and the timing was no coincidence.

During the week prior to his assassination, Maya Naser was investigating Turkey´s forced use of prisoners. Naser began his investigation after it transpired that several of the killed or captured insurgents in Syria were convicts who according to their sentences should be incarcerated in Turkish prisons. (3) Naser had copies of several passports to substantiate the claim.

Some of the killed or captured Turkish convicts had ties to Al Qaeda associated organizations. One of the more prominent among these convict insurgents was the brother of the leader of the 2003 HSBC bombers. The bombing of the HSBC bank in Istanbul in 2003 killed 67 and wounded more than 700 people. The Saudi document indicates that the forced use of prisoners in Saudi Arabia and Turkey is part of a GCC-NATO strategy rather than isolated incidents.

The evidence provided by Maya Naser and the Saudi Arabian document warrant an investigation and prosecution of Turkey, Saudi Arabia as well as against NATO at the International Criminal Court, ICC.

Whether any of the war crimes will be investigated or prosecuted however, is more than just uncertain. For one it is unlikely that any of the western nations will demand an investigation or prosecution. For the other, both Russia and China are most likely considering the already very tense bilateral and multilateral relations between respectively Russia, China and the USA, UK and France. Iran which is currently chairing the Non Aligned Movement is under sustained pressure from the USA, Canada, the EU and its Gulf-Arab neighbors. The Tehran government is likely to think twice before it risks worsening diplomatic relations to the west.

In other words, Turkey´s, Saudi Arabia´s and NATO´s blatant violations of the Geneva Conventions, their forced use of prisoners and state sponsored terrorism is likely not to be noticed by the ICC, which ten years after the Rome Treaty has exclusively prosecuted, imprisoned and sentenced heads of state and government officials who dared to oppose US, EU and NATO hegemony.

If the document ever makes it into western mainstream media, which also is highly doubtful, it may cause a half-baked scandal and it may be used for scapegoating and positioning the one or the other with the implicit purpose of justifying or covering up ones own crimes. It will hardly result in an investigation, prosecution, or a cessation of state sponsored terrorism and forced use of prisoners. …source

Celebrating Human Rights Day
by Michael H. Posner – 10 December, 2012

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs Esther Brimmer addresses the Human Rights Council Urgent Debate on Syria in Geneva, February 28, 2012. [U.S. Mission Geneva/ Public Domain]

Michael Posner serves as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.

Sixty-four years ago today, on December 10, 1948, the world came together to adopt the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). In the UDHR, the United States and governments from around the globe recognized that human beings are, by virtue of their birth, endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that these serve as “the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world.” Today, we affirm this commitment and look to the Universal Declaration not just as a reminder of values, but as a guide for action.

Last Thursday in Dublin, Secretary Clinton emphasized the important role that human rights has played and will continue to play in our foreign policy. As she said, “Human rights cannot be disconnected from other priorities. They are inextricably linked with all of the goals we strive for in our countries and around the world.” Regardless of gender, race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or physical or mental disability, all people deserve the freedom to pursue happiness and fulfillment, to speak openly, to come together with others and organize peacefully, to believe and worship as they see fit, and to participate fully in the public life of society with confidence in the rule of law. In upholding and advancing these freedoms, we live up to our values, we honor our international commitments, and we create an environment for every individual to reach their full potential.

There is much to celebrate — renewed leadership in the international community on human rights issues, including freedom of expression and freedom of religion; systematic engagement with civil society; a landmark policy supporting respect for the rights of LGBT persons; an international effort to advance the rights of persons with disabilities; a National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security and U.S. Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence Globally; and much more. I am proud of our progress and it has been a privilege and a pleasure to work with the Secretary and scores of talented and passionate human rights activists and defenders from around the world, both in and out of government. Human Rights Day is the perfect opportunity to commend their work and ask that they never tire in the fight for a more free and just world.

For those of us in government, there is a lot more to do. We must continue to support countries making the difficult transition to democracy, in the Middle East and around the world. We must continue to engage with and support our colleagues in civil society, as governments attempt to restrict their ability to operate. And, we must continue to work to ensure that no one is left behind in the struggle to realize the fundamental truth of the Universal Declaration that “all persons are created free and equal in dignity and rights.” …source

Bahrain sentences activist’s daughter to jail
Liliana Mihaila – 10 December, 2012 -Egypt Daily News

Dubai (AFP) – A Bahraini court on Monday sentenced the daughter of prominent opposition activist Hadi Al-Khawaja to one month in jail for taking part in an unauthorised demonstration, her lawyer said.

Zainab Al-Khawaja, the eldest of the Shi’a rights activist’s daughters, was found guilty of entering the “prohibited area” of Pearl Square, the main symbol of 2011 protests crushed by security forces, on February 12, the lawyer said.

She also was fined 100 dinars ($258).

Her lawyers disputed the charges, saying there was “no formal decision declaring that Pearl Square is a forbidden area.”

Zainab Al-Khawaja, whose father is serving a life sentence for plotting against the state, has faced justice on several occasions already this year.

In October, she was freed after serving a two-month jail term for destroying government property.

The judiciary accused her of tearing apart a portrait of King Hamad during detention, according to Amnesty International.

In May, she served a one-month prison sentence for assaulting a police officer.

Bahrain came under strong criticism from international human rights organisations over last year’s deadly crackdown on the protests, led by the majority Shi’a in the Sunni-ruled kingdom.

An international panel commissioned by King Hamad to probe the government’s clampdown found that excessive force and torture had been used against protesters and detainees. …

In Egypt: When Democracy is not an Option – Tyranny of the Minority
7 December, 2012 – CoutnerPunch – By: ESAM AL-AMIN

By the time President Muhammad Morsi issued his Constitutional Decree on November 22, the political battle lines in Egypt had been clearly drawn. One side, mostly comprised the forces of political Islam led by the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). But it also included the conservative Salafi groups such as Al-Noor (Light) and Building and Development Parties, as well as other moderate ones such as Al-Wasat (Center), Al-Hadara (Civilization) and Al-Asalah (Authenticity).

The other side encompassed an array of groups and parties from the far left to the far right: those who represented traditional liberal, socialist, and nationalist forces as well as the Coptic Christian church. Ironically, they also included some of the most active revolutionary youth groups such as the April 6 Movement, as well as powerful remnants of the ousted regime of Hosni Mubarak, whom the revolutionaries had vowed to bring down and put on trial for corruption and repression.

But what brought these various secular groups together was their loathing and deep hatred of the MB, who had given the revolutionary groups plenty of reasons in the past to despise them (e.g. having a tacit understanding with the ruling military council during the transitional period so as not to give them any justification to hold up the elections; overlooking the brutality of the security forces against the revolutionary youth during their peaceful protests; reneging on many past promises such as not fielding more than a third of the seats in parliament yet running for over 70 percent of the seats, eventually winning 43 percent in the lower house and 60 percent in the upper house of parliament; pledging not to nominate a presidential candidate but fielding two contenders, splitting the opposition and eventually winning the presidency; promising to form a national unity government yet appointing a government dominated by technocrats and a handful of MB senior members, etc.)

Understanding the Standoff

But the current crisis must be understood in the context of this bitter conflict that has been simmering for almost two years between these two broad political coalitions. Eventually this clash came to a head in the Constitutional Constituent Assembly (CCA), which was charged with writing the new constitution. Since its inception in mid-June, the secular parties were selected to all five special committees within the CCA. But ultimately they complained that they were outmaneuvered, ignored or dominated by the Islamist forces. Many also protested that the constitution was turning Egypt into a “religious state” ” à la the Islamic Republic of Iran. A frequently cited example was article 219, which explained the meaning of article 2. Article two stated that “the principles of Islamic Shari’ah (Islamic Law) is the main source of legislation,” on which all political groups of all persuasions including the representatives of the Christian groups have long agreed.

But Abulela Madi, chairman of Al-Wasat Party and a member of the CCA exposed this fallacious argument in a December 3 interview with Al-Jazeera Mubashir Egypt. Madi had acted as a mediator between the two conflicting parties when they had reached an impasse on the interpretation of article 2. According to him, they agreed to ask Al-Azhar, the oldest and most regarded Islamic institution in Egypt, to define the term. Subsequently the sixteen-word definition was presented to all the political parties on October 3, at which point, all the representatives of the secular forces including Amr Moussa, Ayman Nour, Al-Sayyed Badawi (most leaders of the secular opposition), as well as representatives of the Christian churches, not only agreed to Al-Azhar’s definition, but also signed a document registering their approval. However, in early November, the representatives of the secular groups withdrew from the CCA in protest, citing the already agreed-upon article 219 as one of the main reasons for withdrawal.

Another staunch objection cited by the secular representatives was the use of the word “state and society” in four different articles in references to certain protections in either economic or social spheres (e.g. women, children, workers, etc.) The secularists objected to the inclusion of the word “society” for fear that certain religious groups would be constitutionally-protected in trying to impose their own conservative interpretation of social mores on society. Although the four clauses were lifted directly from the Sadat-era 1971 constitution, the Islamist forces agreed to remove the “offending” term in three of the four articles, keeping it only in the article that referenced the protection of “the family” as the cornerstone of society. For their part, the Islamist groups assert that they more than compromised in this dispute, while the secularists claim that this was a clear example of how conservative religious groups could abuse this constitutional clause in the future by imposing certain religious or salifist interpretations on the entire society.

As the mistrust between the two sides widened, the secular groups concluded in early November that they could attain a better deal if the current CCA was either dissolved by the Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC) during its December 2 session as had been rumored would happen, or when the CCA’s six month mandate expired on December 12.

According to leaks by people close to Morsi, as the president was trying to mediate this dispute, he received disturbing reports around mid November in the midst of his efforts to secure a ceasefire agreement in Gaza between Israel and Hamas. According to these reports published in several websites including Al-Taghyeer and Al-Masreyoon, a meeting took place in the office of Murtada Mansour, a prominent wealthy attorney and businessman with close ties to the former regime and Mubarak’s family. Although he was later acquitted for lack of evidence, he had been officially accused last year by government prosecutors of being one of the masterminds of the “Battle of the Camel” at the height of the Egyptian revolution when scores of protesters were massacred in Tahrir Square. He has also been one of the fiercest critics of the MB, a staunch defender of the former regime, and strongly backed its standard-bearer, Ahmad Shafik (the last Mubarak-era Prime Minister and runner up candidate in the presidential elections.)

The reports also cited other prominent individuals at that meeting such as the Nasserite and leftist Hamdein Sabahi, another failed presidential candidate; Mamdouh Hamza, a wealthy secular public figure and a severe critic of Islamist parties; Tahani Al-Jabali a judge on the SCC, who is also a vocal critic of the MB and proponent of the military council during the transitional period; Judge Ahmad Al-Zand, president of the Judges Syndicate in Cairo, who was also a close confidante of Mubarak and a sworn enemy of the MB; an unnamed former colonel in Mubarak’s security apparatus; as well as an unnamed former senior official of Shafik’s campaign.

These reports allege an elaborate conspiracy that was being hatched against Morsi and the MB. It claims that Al-Jabali shared with the other “co-conspirators” that the SCC was going to dissolve both the upper house of parliament (Majlis Al-Shura) and the CCA. It also charged that the secular opposition groups who withdrew from the CCA planned to escalate their attacks on the MB and the draft of the constitution in order to give cover to the CCA impending dissolution. According to these published reports, the plot would have eventually culminated in fomenting a popular unrest against the MB rule, leading many to question the legitimacy of Morsi’s presidency.

What gave this alleged conspiracy life was Morsi’s address to the nation on December 6. In that speech, he hinted at this conspiracy by claiming that he had evidence of several prominent individuals meeting and plotting against the state. He even referenced the address of the office of the prominent attorney where the meeting was held by mentioning the neighborhood of Al-Dokki in Cairo, where Mansour actually maintains his legal practice. Morsi then vowed in his speech that the state prosecutor would soon expose to the public the details of this conspiracy when charges are filed in the near future against the conspirators.

If this report were to be believed, Morsi had then issued his constitutional decree, which gave him sweeping powers on November 22, in order to preempt what he thought was a grand scheme to destabilize the country and undermine its institutions. But his overreaching decree was only discussed within a very tight and close circle around him. Even his vice president, Mahmoud Makki, a former senior judge, said that he only heard about the president’s decree from television news reports.

Undoubtedly, most political parties and revolutionary groups would have welcomed the parts in the decree that dumped the former state prosecutor, a Mubarak-appointee who failed to secure a single guilty verdict against any former regime officials or security officers in the killing of over 1,000 protesters in the early days of the revolution. Many political groups would have also accepted the two-month extension given to the CCA to complete its work amidst dissention in its ranks.

But what the majority rejected was articles two and six in the decree. Article two shielded the president’s decisions from any judicial review, while article six gave the president any broad powers he deemed necessary to defend the nation and ensure tranquility and stability until a new parliament was elected. Initially, Morsi reasoned that this clause was necessary to thwart an unspecified dangerous plot against the state. He also asserted that he would use these powers in the narrowest way possible. He further argued that there would never be stability in Egypt when the elected institutions were repeatedly dissolved by the Mubarak-era Supreme Court, as had been the case with the lower house of parliament and the first CCA. Thus, he argued that he included that clause because he wanted to shield these popularly elected institutions from any further judicial interference.

The opposition strikes and the supporters strike back

There were three kinds of opposition to the presidential decree. The first type considered the assumed extraordinary powers by the president as ill advised, setting a bad precedent, and unnecessary since a constitutional decree by its nature is not reviewable by the courts. This view was represented by former presidential candidate Dr. Abdelmoneim Abol Fotouh as well as other prominent public figures such as author and columnist Fahmy Howaidy, constitutional scholar Tharwat Badawi, and former president of the Judges’ Syndicate, Judge Zakaria Abdelaziz.

The second type of opposition is represented by the traditional secular parties, groups, and individuals who found an opening in their incessant efforts to disrupt and unravel the nascent MB and FJP rule. They denounced the assumed presidential powers and described them as the beginning of a potential fascist dictatorship. For example, former Member of Parliament and renowned secular spokesman, Dr. Amr Hamzawy, tweeted that Morsi was worse than Hitler. Dr. Mohammad ElBaradei, the former IAEA director and chairman of the liberal Al-Dustoor party, called Morsi a new pharaoh and a dictator worse than Mubarak.

The third type of opposition was the fulool or remnants of the former regime that had been lurking in the background waiting for the right moment to regain their lost power. Since the waning days of the revolution, it was not until last spring that they regrouped around Shafik in his quest to become president but were ultimately defeated despite receiving the support of the military council, the so-called deep state, the oligarchs, and spending hundreds of millions of dollars of their illegally gained wealth on the failed campaign (despite the fact that the elections commission allowed for a maximum spending limit of $2 million.)

When Morsi issued his presidential decree the last two groups quickly formed a broad coalition under the name the National Salvation Front (NSF). Its main leaders included Moussa, ElBaradei, Sabahi, Nour, El-Sayyed Badawi, as well as individuals tied to Shafik and the former regime. In a rare display of unity, most secular groups including many youth revolutionary groups, followed suit and joined the NSF. But many critics contend that what united these diverse and acrimonious groups, was their hatred of the MB and the other religious groups. Their common strategy was simply to go to the streets and start an intense public campaign in order to dislodge Morsi and the MB from power, similar to the early days of the revolution against the Mubarak regime.

Therefore, in the week after Morsi issued the decree, tens of thousands of supporters of secular groups took to the streets calling for its cancellation and the dissolution of the CCA. Although they were largely peaceful demonstrations, two young people, ages 15 and 17, died with one person belonging to each camp (secular and Islamist). The response of the Islamist forces was to speed up the passage of the new constitution by holding a nineteen-hour session to pass the 236-article constitution on Thursday and Friday, November 29 and 30.

The secular groups, who had occupied Tahrir Square since November 23, then escalated their demands by including the rejection of the new constitution and calling for the impeachment of Morsi for refusing to agree to their demands and for the passage of the constitution by his supporters.

As the battle in the streets was taking shape, the Islamist groups held their own massive demonstration on December 1 in Nahda Square in front of Cairo University to support the president and the new constitution. The number of people in this demonstration dwarfed those of the secular opposition in Tahrir Square. According to neutral experts, this number ranged from one to two million, some even claiming as much as six million demonstrators nationwide. At night, a massive screen in the square showed the president meeting with members of the CCA and officially receiving a copy of the draft constitution. The president then promptly announced that on December 15 the country would vote on the new constitution in a public referendum. While the demonstrators in Nahda Square roared and cheered in support of this decision, the protesters in Tahrir booed and condemned the same act, a contrast that was shown in a split screen on many TV news channels.

If the objective of the Islamist demonstrators was to show which side had more popular support in the streets, this goal was easily accomplished. But if the demonstration was to present a moderate face to the public in order to soothe any concerns or fears of impending religious authoritarianism, this goal failed miserably. Many of the chants and speeches during the demonstration simply solidified the anxieties and apprehensions among the secular groups. Many neutral observers such as presidential advisors Ayman Al-Sayyad and Esmat Saif-al-Dawalah saw this as a display of ugly religious fascism. Four non-partisan presidential advisors, including these two, resigned shortly thereafter.

After their enormous show of public support, tens of thousands of Islamists left Nahda Square and by early morning were holding another demonstration in front of the SCC. On that day (December 2) the high court was scheduled to hold its session on the constitutionality of Majlis Al-Shura and the CCA. Morsi’s supporters feared that if the SCC dissolved both bodies, then a constitutional crisis would ensue. Fearing for their lives from the ugly chants in front of the court’s building, the SCC judges angrily suspended their work indefinitely.

The next day the secular forces led by the NSF called for a counter demonstration in front of the presidential palace “Al-Ittihadiyyah” in order to besiege the president in the same manner the judges were besieged by the Islamist protesters. By Tuesday, December 4 thousands of angry demonstrators surrounded the presidential palace demanding the end of the MB rule and the downfall of Morsi. Meanwhile, many FJP and MB offices around the country were also ransacked and torched.

By Wednesday, December 5, Morsi’s supporters arrived by the thousands in front of the presidential palace and by nightfall violence between the groups quickly broke out, resulting in six deaths and over 700 injuries. An FJP official reported that all the dead were MB supporters and that over 1,500 were injured nationwide. MB leader and prominent attorney Sobhi Saleh was badly beaten and accused his opponents of trying to assassinate him. Similarly, secular groups accused the MB of instigating mob violence as its supporters tried to clear the grounds of the secular groups in the area around the presidential palace as they took down their tents. What was incredible during these street scuffles was the absence of the security forces for fear of killing or injuring any demonstrators by the state security units.

In a subsequent address to the nation, President Morsi said that among the injured were 61 people who were shot with either real or rubber bullets by thugs infiltrating the demonstrators. He also claimed that many presidential cars were attacked and torched and that the police subsequently arrested 80 “thugs” from among the protesters who confessed to being paid to shoot the demonstrators and instigate violence. He hinted that the fulool were behind these thugs and vowed that those who were behind the instigation of violence would be apprehended and brought to justice.

The President speaks

Throughout the confrontation, the TV airwaves were flooded with initiatives aimed at defusing the impending explosion. For the first time since the revolution, there is fear of a real danger of civil strife, if not an all-out civil war. The opposition leadership of the NSF huddled at the Al-Wafd Party on the morning of December 6. But by mid-afternoon, their spokesman escalated the situation and accused the MB of instigating violence the previous day. He also vowed not only to insist on their demands to annul the presidential decree and cancel the constitutional referendum, but also to bring down Morsi’s presidency. He then rejected all calls for participation in a national dialogue with the president or his political supporters. The spokesman finally called for massive protests on Friday, December 7 in all squares across Egypt to bring down Morsi’s government.

Meanwhile, Dr. Abol Fotouh held a press conference rejecting some aspects of the presidential decree, namely articles 2 and 6, while affirming the legitimacy of Morsi’s presidency. He called on the opposition to stop settling scores with the MB, reject the infiltration of the fulool among them, and be civilized and non-violent in their opposition. He also announced that his party would reject the constitution because of the concessions given to the military in the draft as well as the lack of real commitment in the constitution to social justice for Egypt’s poor.

Meanwhile, as President Morsi addressed the nation on Thursday evening, December 6, over several thousand thugs of the fulool, in what appeared to be coordinated efforts, attacked and torched several MB buildings across Egypt including their headquarters in Cairo, which further inflamed the MB’s members and supporters.

Morsi’s speech was his first address to the nation covering the most contentious troubles facing his country. He began his speech by rejecting violence and asking all parties to adhere to a civilized way in settling their differences while affirming the right of dissent and peaceful protest. He gave some details about the casualties during the violent confrontations the previous day and revealed that a conspiracy by the fulool has been uncovered and that the general prosecutor would soon expose the extent of the plot to undermine the institutions of the state and spread internal strife.

He also addressed the presidential decree and acknowledged that the opposition to the sweeping powers given to the president was legitimate but that such powers were probably unnecessary since he already had sufficient authority to deal with any instability in the country. He then proclaimed that once a national dialogue with the opposition commenced, he would not insist on article 6 and would be willing to rescind it. As for article 2, he claimed that he only meant to shield sovereign presidential decisions from the courts not the typical executive ones, and that such interpretation was already an established principle upheld in the past by the courts.

However, since the beginning of the crisis, many opposition groups had two main demands: the annulment of the decree and the cancellation of the referendum until a national consensus is reached on the disputed articles of the constitution. Remarkably, Morsi’s speech addressed both concerns and offered real concessions on both fronts. Initially, Morsi stated upon issuing his decree that it would only be voided once a parliament is elected. That meant the decree would be in effect at least until next spring provided that the referendum on the constitution passed and parliamentary elections were held within two months, as proposed in the new constitution.

But in his speech on Thursday, Morsi declared that his decree would be rescinded once the people vote on the constitutional referendum on December 15, regardless of the outcome of the vote. In other words, he pledged to accede to the first demand of the opposition within nine days, without any concessions on their part. Nevertheless, the opposition argued that this pledge was a ploy because he knew that the referendum would pass by a wide margin and then the decree would become moot anyway.

As for the constitutional referendum, the president offered another carrot to the opposition, calling for a national dialogue between all the political groups to take place in the presidential palace on Saturday, December 8. He said that any concern could be raised by the participants and any item could be placed on the agenda without preconditions. In addition, he stated that he was open to all options on any issue as long as a consensus among the different warring parties could be reached. He further urged all political groups to participate in order to chart a new roadmap for the future of the country. Finally, he vowed that if the constitutional referendum were rejected by the people on Dec. 15, he would not appoint the next CCA as stipulated by a previous decree issued by the military. Rather he called for either reaching a consensus on this body by all the national political groups, or failing that, asking the people to directly elect the next Constitution Constituent Assembly that would be charged with writing the new constitution.

Earlier in the day, Vice President Makki had given a press conference in which he offered what he called a constitutional way to resolve the disputed articles in the new constitutional draft. He proposed that a committee of three constitutional scholars be formed with each side appointing one expert and the third being acceptable to both sides. Then he asked that the proposed language of the ten to fifteen disputed articles be given by both sides to this committee. In turn the committee would study both versions and propose a compromise language to the disputed articles. He then said that all political groups must at the outset vow to accept the outcome of this committee and agree to support it in the new parliament, as it will be offered to the people as amendments to the constitution in a future referendum. In his speech Morsi hinted that he would accept such proposal.

After the speech it became clear that there was a split among the opposition. Ayman Nour from Al-Ghad Party and El-Sayyed Badawi from Al-Wafd Party were open to the dialogue. Sabahi, ElBaradei, the April 6 revolutionary youth movement and some groups affiliated with the fulool rejected the dialogue out of hand and called for further demonstrations and escalation. The NSF did not immediately respond, but Moussa said that he would confer with the other partners.

After the speech, Morsi’s Justice Minister, Judge Ahmad Makki, announced that the president was open to all options if the opposition vowed to participate in the dialogue, including the postponement of the constitutional referendum pending the resolution of the disputed articles provided that a broad national consensus was reached. Makki further presented a mechanism to this process. He said that if a broad agreement were achieved during the Dec. 8 national dialogue between the different parties, the president would be open to issue a new constitutional decree that would postpose the Dec. 15 constitutional referendum in order to give additional time to settle the disputed articles in the current draft.

Accepting the Rules of Democracy

But perhaps many of the secular leaders are wary of this course of action because they know that ultimately they cannot win at the ballot box. One of their prominent spokesmen, Hamzawy, recently said on national TV that he could not trust the judgment of the people because they are brain washed by the Islamist parties. And therein lies the crux of the problem.

Morsi, the MB, and other Islamist parties feel so much confidence at the polls that they always assert that the best way to settle any political differences is to submit to the will of the people. They reason that the rules of democracy dictate that political disputes are always settled at the ballot box. In this particular instance, Morsi publicly asked to let the people decide on the fate of the new constitution, and failing ratification, he called for citizens to elect the one hundred people charged with writing the new constitution.

Meanwhile, the secular forces argue correctly that constitutional documents are living documents that represent the social contract between the state and all segments of society and cannot be subject to the rules of majority and minority voting. While many Islamist groups agree with this notion, they ask how in the end are we going to settle our differences if we cannot reach consensus?

While there are several articles in the constitution that need to be revised and amended, the idea that this constitution lays the ground for the creation of a religious state as proclaimed by some secular groups is not credible. Nevertheless, the Islamist parties, especially the MB, need to be more open and humble in their dealings with the others in order to mollify their fears and concerns. Thus, the best course of action might be to accept Vice President Makki’s proposal to reach a compromise on the few disputed articles in order to bring about a consensus.

As for the secular forces, they need to face reality and accept the will of the people in a new and free Egypt. If their vision and programs for the country are better than the Islamist parties, then they have to convince the Egyptian electorate and start winning elections and referendums. They cannot claim to be pro-democracy and reject its outcome, or hail its principles while undermining its system or circumventing its rules.

…source