By Paul J. Balles * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

JIM Hoagland, writing in the Washington Post, says: "We have seen how information technology can provide a spark that sets afire the kindling of economic and social distress."

That was Hoagland's way of concluding an opening salvo that said: "Grinding civil war in Libya, a state-organised bloodbath in Syria and troubling stumbles in Egypt's march to democracy dim the lustre of Arab revolts that began the year in glory. This Arab summer is a political season of reaction and reversal."

What Hoagland refers to as "the virus of modern communication" most pundits have labelled "the Arab Spring".

The implication is that all protests have occurred for the same reason and in the same part of the world. That's simply not true.

Not all demonstrations have been agitating for democracy. According to Don Tapscott writing in The Guardian:

"A common thread to the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt and protests elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa is the soul-crushing high rate of youth unemployment. Twenty-four per cent of young people in the region cannot find jobs."

But the reasons for youth rebellions differ from place to place. Not all have been due to unemployment.

Commenting on student dissent in Chile, writer John Daly says:

"An element common to all these events is the population's rising anger over governments' perceived ineptitude and even outright corruption, inflicting financial misery on all but a privileged elite."

Few young people consider what effect their protests will have. Little heed gets paid by these youthful protesters to the cost of their revolutionary zeal. They blithely ignore the disaster their activities have caused to their national economies.

Millions in Tunisia and Egypt, for instance, have been dependent on the tourist trade, now lost and sacrificing the livelihoods of the entire industry's workers.

The demonstrators in the recent revolts only look at perceived injustices and pay scant attention to what will replace the systems they oppose.

Even Israel is hosting an Arab Spring. After experiencing demonstrations that saw "hundreds of thousands of Israelis" take to the streets, a Haaretz editorial comments: "We are in the midst of what is increasingly shaping up to be an Israeli revolution."

Monarchs, presidents and prime ministers are almost never universally opposed.

During the demonstrations in North Africa, those who supported the existing governments didn't take to the streets until large numbers of Libyans rose up to defend the Gadaffi regime in Tripoli.

And what of the prospects for more protests and demonstrations in Europe?

Protests in Europe have been largely due to youth unemployment and worse are expected because of budget cutbacks and debt crises.

Kids with no jobs ran amok in London.

Look for more demonstrations in Europe like those in Greece (with 38.5pc unemployment) and by the jobless in countries facing financial crises like Spain (45.7pc unemployment), Italy (27.8pc unemployment) and Ireland (26.9pc unemployment).

Who knows? Disastrous economics in America could usher in a riotous summer. There are already calls for a "Day of Rage" in the US.

* Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. He's a weekly Op-Ed columnist for the Gulf Daily News. Dr. Balles is also Editorial Consultant for Red House Marketing and a regular contributor to Bahrain This Month.

Ceyda Nurtsch interview with Noam Chomsky* about the Arabic spring in its global context.

Nurtsch: Mr. Chomsky, many people claim that the Arab world is incompatible with democracy. Would you say that the recent developments falsify this thesis?

False friends: Iran' democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh during a visit in the US in 1951, two years before the CIA's coup d'état that ousted him

In internal discussions in 1958, which have since been declassified, President Eisenhower spoke about a campaign of hatred against us in the Arab world. Not from the governments, but from the people. The National Security Council's top planning body produced a memorandum – you can pick it up on the web now – in which they explained it. They said that the perception in the Arab world is that the United States blocks democracy and development and supports harsh dictators and we do it to get control over their oil. The memorandum said, this perception is more or less accurate and that's basically what we ought to be doing.

Nurtsch: That means that western democracies prevented the emergence of democracies in the Arab world?

Chomsky: I won't run through the details, but yes, it continues that way to the present. There are constant democratic uprisings. They are crushed by the dictators we – mainly the US, Britain, and France – support. So sure, there is no democracy because you crush it all. You could have said the same about Latin America: a long series of dictators, brutal murderers. As long as the US controls the hemisphere, or Europe before it, there is no democracy, because it gets crushed.

Nurtsch: So you were not surprised at all by the Arab Spring?

On 6 April 2008 Egyptian workers, primarily in the state-run textile industry, striked in response to low wages and rising food costs. Strikes were illegal in Egypt, and the protests were eventually crushed

But in Egypt they remember, and that's only one in a long series of militant strike actions. Some of them succeeded. There are some good studies of this. There is one American scholar, Joel Beinen – he is at Stanford – he has done a lot of work on the Egyptian labour movement. And he has recent articles and earlier ones, in which he discusses labour struggles going on for a long time: those are efforts to create democracy.

Nurtsch: Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, claimed to cause a domino effect of freedom with his policy of the "New Middle East". Is there a relation between the uprisings in the Arab world to the policy of George W. Bush?

Chomsky: The main theme of modern post-war history is the domino effect: Cuba, Brazil, Vietnam… Henry Kissinger compared it to a virus that might spread contagion. When he and Nixon were planning the overthrow of the democratically elected Allende in Chile – we have all the internal materials now – Kissinger in particular said, the Chilean virus might affect countries as far as Europe. Actually, he and Brezhnev agreed on that, they were both afraid of democracy and Kissinger said, we have to wipe out this virus. And they did, they crushed it.

Today it's similar. Both Bush and Obama are terrified of the Arab spring. And there is a very sensible reason for that. They don't want democracies in the Arab world. If Arab public opinion had any influence on policy, the US and Britain had been tossed out of the Middle East. That's why they are terrified of democracies in the region.

Nurtsch: The well-known British Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk recently stated that Obama and his policy is irrelevant for the developments in the region…

Chomsky: I read the article, it's very good. Robert Fisk is a terrific journalist and he really knows the region well. I think what he means is that the activists in the April 6th movement don't care about the United States. They have totally given up on the US. They know the United States is their enemy. In fact in public opinion in Egypt about 90 per cent think that the US is the worst threat that they face. In that sense the USA is of course not irrelevant. It's just too powerful.

Nurtsch: Some criticize the Arab intellectuals for being too silent, too passive. What should the role of the Arab intellectual be today?

Chomsky: Intellectuals have a special responsibility. We call them intellectuals because they are privileged and not because they are smarter than anyone else. But if you are privileged and you have some status and you can be articulate and so on we call you an intellectual. And it's the same in the Arab world as anywhere else.

Ceyda Nurtsch
© Qantara.de 2011
Editor: Lewis Gropp/Qantara.de

* Noam Chomsky is one of the major intellectuals of our time. The eighty-two-year-old American linguist, philosopher and activist is a severe critic of US foreign and economic policy.

By Paul J. Balles * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Revolutions raise more questions than answers. The prime one: What happens after the thrill of protest victory wears off?

Zen master Alan Watts once said there are only four basic questions that apply to anything:

What are we going to do?

Who's going to do it?

How are we going to do it?

Who's going to clean up the mess afterwards?

Protests in the streets are only part of the answer to Watt's first question. Do the protestors know or agree upon what they want?

The desire for some kind of change is obvious. But what change will satisfy most or all?

Peter Oborne, the Daily Telegraph's chief political commentator says, "They have been impelled into action by mass poverty and unemployment, allied to a sense of disgust at vast divergences of wealth and grotesque corruption."

Will removal of Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali or Hosni Mubarak or Ali Abdullah Saleh respond to the problems of "mass poverty and unemployment?"

What's to be done about the "vast divergences of wealth and grotesque corruption referred to by Oborne?"

What about those not actually involved in the demonstrations? How many Tunisians, Egyptians or Yemenis were actually among the protestors? Hundreds of thousands?

What about the rest of the populations (more than 80 million in Egypt)? Do the demonstrators represent them? Should the protestors make decisions about what to do simply because they took part in the shouting and waving of arms and flags?

Oborne questioned the popular belief that the revolutionary activity was stimulated by social networking.

He wrote, "Far from being inspired by Twitter, a great many of Arab people who have driven the sensational events of recent weeks are illiterate."

The last I heard, Egyptian males have a literacy rate of 83%, with females at 59.4%. In Tunisia, it's 78% for all.

While these are a long way from the 90% to 100% rates of 98 countries, they don't preclude the use of social media like Twitter to organize the youth.

However, not even 83% literacy can solve the post demonstration problems. There are those who want constitutional changes. Others look for leaders who will not follow in the footsteps of their predecessors.

Then there are dreamers who hope that employment and elimination of poverty will somehow come out of a genii's bottle.

Protestors look back with obsessions about the ills that brought them into the streets. As long as the past commands attention, the question of "who" cannot be focused on tomorrow.

Answers to "what are we going to do?" should extend beyond cleaning the political house.

Some semblance of unity must preclude the choice of "who's going to do it?" Things don't simply run by themselves. Post revolutions require leaders to take over the task of putting humpty dumpty back together again.

If supreme councils or parliaments could lead, the loudly touted democracies wouldn't need presidents or prime ministers or cabinets to run things.

How much do the demonstrators take into account the need for leaders with the expertise or experience necessary to make the decisions that keep a country functioning?

The mess to be cleaned up afterward includes recovering an economy wrecked by the revolution.

The Egyptian economy, for example, depends heavily on a tourist trade that is now in shambles.

Dear protestors, in getting rid of one problem, you have created another that may be harder on your pocket book than the one you eliminated.

The problems you create will be greater than the ones you solve. Look at the history of any revolution. Then go home and start answering Watt's questions.

* Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. He's a weekly Op-Ed columnist for the Gulf Daily News. Dr. Balles is also Editorial Consultant for Red House Marketing and a regular contributor to Bahrain This Month.

By James Petras* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Introduction

Most accounts of the Arab revolts from Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Morocco, Yemen, Jordan, Bahrain, Iraq and elsewhere have focused on the most immediate causes: political dictatorships, unemployment, repression and the wounding and killing of protestors. They have given most attention to the "middle class", young, educated activists, their communication via the internet, (Los Angeles Times, Feb. 16, 2011) and, in the case of Israel and its Zionists conspiracy theorists, "the hidden hand" of Islamic extremists (Daily Alert Feb. 25, 2011).

What is lacking is any attempt to provide a framework for the revolt which takes account of the large scale, long and medium term socio-economic structures as well as the immediate 'detonators' of political action. The scope and depth of the popular uprisings, as well as the diverse political and social forces which have entered into the conflicts, preclude any explanations which look at one dimension of the struggles.

The best approach involves a 'funnel framework' in which, at the wide end (the long-term, large-scale structures), stands the nature of the economic, class and political system; the middle-term is defined by the dynamic cumulative effects of these structures on changes in political, social and economic relations; the short-term causes, which precipitate the socio-political-psychological responses, or social consciousness leading to political action.

The Nature of the Arab Economies

With the exception of Jordan, most of the Arab economies where the revolts are taking place are based on 'rents' from oil, gas, minerals and tourism, which provide most of the export earnings and state revenues(Financial Times, Feb. 22, 2011, p. 14). These economic sectors are, in effect, export enclavesWorld Bank Annual Report 2009). These export sectors do not have links to a diversified productive domestic economy: oil is exported and finished manufactured goods as well as financial and high tech services are all imported and controlled by foreign multi-nationals and ex-pats linked to the ruling class (Economic and Political Weekly, Feb. 12, 2011, p. 11). Tourism reinforces 'rental' income, as the sector, which provides 'foreign exchange' and tax revenues to the class – clan state. The latter relies on state-subsidized foreign capital and local politically connected 'real estate' developers for investment and imported foreign construction laborers. employing a tiny fraction of the labor force and define a highly specialized economy (

Rent-based income may generate great wealth, especially as energy prices soar, but the funds accrue to a class of "rentiers" who have no vocation or inclination for deepening and extending the process of economic development and innovation. The rentiers "specialize" in financial speculation, overseas investments via private equity firms, extravagant consumption of high-end luxury goods and billion-dollar and billion-euro secret private accounts in overseas banks.

The rentier economy provides few jobs in modern productive activity; the high end is controlled by extended family-clan members and foreign financial corporations via ex-pat experts; technical and low-end employment is taken up by contract foreign labor, at income levels and working conditions below what the skilled local labor force is willing to accept.

The enclave rentier economy results in a clan-based ruling class which 'confounds' public and private ownership: what's 'state' is actually absolutist monarchs and their extended families at the top and their client tribal leader, political entourage and technocrats in the middle.

These are "closed ruling classes". Entry is confined to select members of the clan or family dynasties and a small number of "entrepreneurial" individuals who might accumulate wealth servicing the ruling clan-class. The 'inner circle' lives off of rental income, secures payoffs from partnerships in real estate where they provide no skills, but only official permits, land grants, import licenses and tax holidays.

Beyond pillaging the public treasury, the ruling clan-class promotes 'free trade', i.e. importing cheap finished products, thus undermining any indigenous domestic start-ups in the 'productive' manufacturing, agricultural or technical sector.

As a result there is no entrepreneurial national capitalist or 'middle class'. What passes for a middle class are largely public sector employees (teachers, health professionals, functionaries, firemen, police officials, military officers) who depend on their salaries, which, in turn, depend on their subservience to absolutist power. They have no chance of advancing to the higher echelons or of opening economic opportunities for their educated offspring.

The concentration of economic, social and political power in a closed clan-class controlled system leads to an enormous concentration of wealth. Given the social distance between rulers and ruled, the wealth generated by high commodity prices produces a highly distorted image of per-capital "wealth"; adding billionaires and millionaires on top of a mass of low-income and underemployed youth provides a deceptively high average income (Washington Blog, 2/24/11).

Rentier Rule: By Arms and Handouts

To compensate for these great disparities in society and to protect the position of the parasitical rentier ruling class, the latter pursues alliances with, multi-billion dollar arms corporations, and military protection from the dominant (USA) imperial power. The rulers engage in "neo-colonization by invitation", offering land for military bases and airfields, ports for naval operations, collusion in financing proxy mercenaries against anti-imperial adversaries and submission to Zionist hegemony in the region (despite occasional inconsequential criticisms).

In the middle term, rule by force is complemented by paternalistic handouts to the rural poor and tribal clans; food subsidies for the urban poor; and dead-end make-work employment for the educated unemployed (Financial Times, 2/25/11, p. 1). Both costly arms purchases and paternalistic subsidies reflect the lack of any capacity for productive investments. Billions are spent on arms rather than diversifying the economy. Hundreds of millions are spent on one-shot paternalistic handouts, rather than long-term investments generating productive employment.

The 'glue' holding this system together is the combination of modern pillage of public wealth and natural energy resources and the use of traditional clan and neo-colonial recruits and mercenary contractors to control and repress the population. US modern armaments are at the service of anachronistic absolutist monarchies and dictatorships, based on the principles of 18^th century dynastic rule.

The introduction and extension of the most up-to-date communication systems and ultra-modern architecture shopping centers cater to an elite strata of luxury consumers and provides a stark contrast to the vast majority of unemployed educated youth, excluded from the top and pressured from below by low-paid overseas contract workers.

Neo-Liberal Destabilization

The rentier class-clans are pressured by the international financial institutions and local bankers to 'reform' their economies: 'open' the domestic market and public enterprises to foreign investors and reduce deficits resulting from the global crises by introducing neo-liberal reforms (Economic and Political Weekly, 2/12/11, p. 11).

As a result of "economic reforms" food subsidies for the poor have been lowered or eliminated and state employment has been reduced, closing off one of the few opportunities for educated youth. Taxes on consumers and salaried/wage workers are increased while the real estate developers, financial speculators and importers receive tax exonerations. De-regulation has exacerbated massive corruption, not only among the rentier ruling class-clan, but also by their immediate business entourage.

The paternalistic 'bonds' tying the lower and middle class to the ruling class have been eroded by foreign-induced neo-liberal "reforms", which combine 'modern' foreign exploitation with the existing "traditional" forms of domestic private pillage. The class-clan regimes no longer can rely on the clan, tribal, clerical and clientelistic loyalties to isolate urban trade unions, student, small business and low paid public sector movements.

The Street against the Palace

The 'immediate causes' of the Arab revolts are centered in the huge demographic-class contradictions of the clan-class ruled rentier economy. The ruling oligarchy rules over a mass of unemployed and underemployed young workers; the latter involves between 50% to 65% of the population under 25 years of age (Washington Blog, 2/24/11). The dynamic "modern" rentier economy does not incorporatethe street as venders, transport and contract workers and in personal services. The ultra- modern oil, gas, real estate, tourism and shopping-mall sectors are dependent on the political the newly educated young into modern employment; it relegates them into the low-paid unprotected "informal economy" of and military support of backward traditional clerical, tribal and clan leaders, who are subsidized but never 'incorporated' into the sphere of modern production. The modern urban industrial working class with small, independent trade unions is banned. Middle class civic associations are either under state control or confined to petitioning the absolutist state.

The 'underdevelopment' of social organizations, linked to social classes engaged in modern productive activity, means that the pivot of social and political action is the street. Unemployed and underemployed part-time youth engaged in the informal sector are found in the plazas, at kiosks, cafes, street corner society, and markets, moving around and about and outside the centers of absolutist administrative power. The urban mass does not occupy strategic positions in the economic system; but it is available for mass mobilizations capable of paralyzing the streets and plazas through which goods and services are transported out and profits are realized. Equally important, mass movements launched by the unemployed youth provide an opportunity for oppressed professionals, public sector employees, small business people and the self-employed to engage in protests without being subject to reprisals at their place of employment – dispelling the "fear factor" of losing one's job.

The political and social confrontation revolves around the opposite poles: clientelistic oligarchies and de clasé masses (the Arab Street). The former depends directly on the state (military/police apparatus) and the latter on amorphous local, informal, face-to-face improvised organizations. The exception is the minority of university students who move via the internet. Organized industrial trade unions come into the struggle late and largely focus on sectoral economic demands, with some exceptions – especially in public enterprises, controlled by cronies of the oligarchs, where workers demand changes in management.

As a result of the social particularities of the rentier states, the uprisings do not take the form of class struggles between wage labor and industrial capitalists. They emerge as mass political revolts against the oligarchical state. Street-based social movements demonstrate their capacity to delegitimize state authority, paralyze the economy, and can lead up to the ousting of the ruling autocrats. But it is the nature of mass street movements to fill the squares with relative ease, but also to be dispersed when the symbols of oppression are ousted. Street-based movements lack the organization and leadership to project, let alone impose a new political or social order. Their power is found in their ability to pressureseize power and protect the entire rentier state and economic structure while sustaining their ties with their imperial mentors. existing elites and institutions, not to replace the state and economy.

Hence the surprising ease with which the US, Israeli and EU backed Egyptian military were able to seize power and protect the entire rentier state and economic structure while sustaining their ties with their imperial mentors.

Converging Conditions and the "Demonstration Effect"

The spread of the Arab revolts across North Africa, the Middle East and Gulf States is, in the first instance, a product of similar historical and social conditions: rentier states ruled by family-clan oligarchs dependent on "rents" from capital intensive oil and energy exports, which confine the vast majority of youth to marginal informal 'street-based' economic activities.

The "power of example" or the "demonstration effect" can only be understood by recognizing the same socio-political conditions in each country. Street power – mass urban movements – presumes the streetlocus of the principal actors and the takeover of the plazas as the place to exert political power and project social demands. No doubt the partial successes in Egypt and Tunisia did detonate the movements elsewhere. But they did so only in countries with the same historical legacy, the same social polarities between rentier – clan rulers and marginal street labor and especially where the rulers were deeply integrated and subordinated to imperial economic and military networks. as the economic

Conclusion

Rentier rulers govern via their ties to the US and EU military and financial institutions. They modernize their affluent enclaves and marginalize recently educated youth, who are confined to low paid jobs, especially in the insecure informal sector, centered in the streets of the capital cities. Neo-liberal privatizations, reductions in public subsidies (for food, unemployment subsidies, cooking oil, gas, transport, health, and education) shattered the paternalistic ties through which the rulers contained the discontent of the young and poor, as well as clerical elites and tribal chiefs. The confluence of classes and masses, modern and traditional, was a direct result of a process of neo-liberalization from above and exclusion from below. The neo-liberal "reformers" promise that the 'market' would substitute well-paying jobs for the loss of state paternalistic subsidies was false. The neo-liberal polices reinforced the concentration of wealth while weakening state controls over the masses.

The world capitalist economic crises led Europe and the US to tighten their immigration controls, eliminating one of the escape valves of the regimes – the massive flight of unemployed educated youth seeking jobs abroad. Out-migration was no longer an option; the choices narrowed to struggle or suffer. Studies show that those who emigrate tend to be the most ambitious, better educated (within their class) and greatest risk takers. Now, confined to their home country, with few illusions of overseas opportunities, they are forced to struggle for individual mobility at home through collective social and political action.

Equally important among the political youth, is the fact that the US, as guarantor of the rentier regimes, is seen as a declining imperial power: challenged economically in the world market by China; facing defeat as an occupying colonial ruler in Iraq and Afghanistan; and humiliated as a subservient and mendacious servant of an increasingly discredited Israel via its Zionist agents in the Obama regime and Congress. All of these elements of US imperial decay and discredit, encourage the pro-democracy movements to move forward against the US clients and lessen their fears that the US military would intervene and face a third military front. The mass movements view their oligarchies as "third tier" regimes: rentier states under US hegemony, which, in turn, is under Israeli – Zionist tutelage. With 130 countries in the UN General Assembly and the entire Security Council, minus the US, condemning Israeli colonial expansion; with Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia and the forthcoming new regimes in Yemen and Bahrain promising democratic foreign policies, the mass movements realize that all of Israel's modern arms and 680,000 soldiers are of no avail in the face of its total diplomatic isolation, its loss of regional rentier clients, and the utter discredit of its bombastic militarist rulers and their Zionist agents in the US diplomatic corps (Financial Times 2/24/11, p. 7).

The very socio-economic structures and political conditions which detonated the pro-democracy mass movements, the unemployed and underemployed youth organized from "the street", now present the greatest challenge: can the amorphous and diverse mass becomes an organized social and political force which can take state power, democratize the regime and, at the same time, create a new productive economy to provide stable well- paying employment, so far lacking in the rentier economy? The political outcome to date is indeterminate: democrats and socialists compete with clerical, monarchist, and neoliberal forces bankrolled by the U.S.

It is premature to celebrate a popular democratic revolution....

* James Petras' latest books, Global Depression and Regional Wars (Atlanta, Clarity Press, 2009) is the third in a series, including Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power (Atlanta, Clarity Press 2008) and The Power of Israel in the United States (Atlanta, Clarity Press 2006), analyzing the influence of militarism and Zionism in American foreign policy.

By Stephen Lendman * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

When imperial America wants war, peace advocates are shut out by official rhetoric and hawkish media reports supporting militarism, not diplomatic efforts to achieve peace. Those for it aren't heard. Hugo Chavez's government is one. On February 28, Venezuela's Foreign Minister, Nicolas Maduro, warned against belligerence saying:

"We would be against any military intervention against the Arabic people of Libya, and I'm sure that all peoples of the world would support a struggle against any interventionism that some powerful countries would commit against it....Arabic people who are in a process of rebellion, seeking a better destiny, (can) find their way to peace. (Venezuelans understand) very difficult times, (but have) gone about finding our ways to independence, democracy, and freedom, which in our case" is Bolarivarianism.

"Just as we were against the invasion of Iraq and the massacre of the Palestinian people of Gaza, we would be against any military (attack or) invasion of Libya."

Chavez added: We "want peace for this country and for the peoples of the world. Those who immediately condemn Libya don't talk about (Israel's) bombing (of Gaza, America assault on) Fallujah, and the thousands and thousands of deaths including children, women, and whole families. They are quiet about the bombing and massacres in Iraq, in Afghanistan, so they don't have the right to condemn anyone," especially from unverified reports.

Amidst hawkish official rhetoric and supportive media reports, Chavez and Maduro are shut out, unheard voices in the wilderness outside Venezuela and parts of Latin America.

Official US Policy: War Yes, Peace No

For imperial America, giving peace a chance isn't an option when war is planned to destroy another nation, replace its leader with a more amenable one, and plunder its resources. In Libya, its to exploit its vast energy reserves and people, commodities for greater profit.

A previous article said Gaddafi without question is despotic, governing by "fear and cronyism," treating Libya as his "private estate," as well as spawning a hierarchy of corrupt officials, disdainful of popular interests.

The same holds for dozens of other countries, most of which Washington supports, some as close allies. Ones allied with America escape media scrutiny, their crimes airbrushed from daily reports. Enemies, however, are pilloried, including by unverified misreporting, willfully distorting the truth, violating good journalism principles.

Until it closed at year end 2005, Chicago's famed City News Bureau gave young reporters rigorous training, explained in its notable principle: "If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out with two independent sources." In other words, get it right or not at all, what's absent in today's deplorable reporting, from Fox to The New York Times, BBC and others, offering managed, not real news and information.

Fox News especially, as America's official voice of right wing politics. On US television, it's in full battle mode, beating the drums of war, its staff under strict management guidelines, manipulating facts to be hardline.

As a result, news anchor Jon Scott said, "If I were President Obama, I would unilaterally" impose a no-fly zone, no matter that doing so is an act of war. Bill O'Reilly called Obama's position "beyond wimpy." Sean Hannity wonders when America will attack Libya, calling Obama "extraordinarily weak." Glenn Beck said Wisconsin protests prove the Caliphate's presence in America. Other hosts are just as extreme. No wonder Fairness and Accuracy in Media (FAIR) calls Fox "the most biased name in news." It reports. It decides. Truth is nowhere in sight.

The New York Times editorial headlined, "Qaddafi's Crimes and Fantasies," matched Fox, saying:

His "crimes continue to mount." Citing unverified reports, it said "Libyan Air Force warplanes bombed rebel-controlled areas in the eastern part of the country. Libyan special forces mounted ground assaults on two breakaway cities near the capital. (Finally), the United States (EU and UN want) Qaddafi and his cronies to go (and) called on the International Criminal Court to investigate potential war crimes."

This is the same paper that exonerated Washington and Britain for fabricating Iraq WMD intelligence to justify war, citing London's whitewash Hutton inquiry in its January 29, 2004 editorial headlined, "Testing Two Leaders; Tony Blair, Vindicated."

Despite clear indictable evidence, The Times endorsed the findings for being "fully consistent with the information available to British intelligence (and Washington) at that time and that no claims then known to be false or unreliable were concluded." In fact, they were independently exposed as false and misleading, though nonetheless used to wage war.

Moreover, discredited reporter Judith Miller wrote daily propaganda, functioning as a Pentagon press agent, not a legitimate journalist. Commenting on her earlier, Alex Cockburn said:

"With Miller, we (sunk) to the level of straight press handout. Lay all Judith Miller....stories end to end, from late 2001 to June 2003, and you (got) a desolate picture of a reporter with an agenda, both manipulating and being manipulated by US government officials, Iraqi exiles and defectors, an entire Noah's Ark of scam-artists."

Worst of all was The Times itself for giving her daily front page space, then never adequately apologizing when their complicity was exposed. Powerful media outlets never have to say they're sorry. They stay in full battle mode against new targets.

Now Times editors have the audacity to advocate Libyan intervention for reasons other than humanitarian, including asset freezes, a no-fly zone, harsh sanctions, travel bans, encouraged insurrection, criminal prosecution, stopping just short of endorsing war, but expect that to change if Washington attacks.

The Washington Post is just as belligerent, its February 21 editorial headlined, "Moammar Gaddafi must pay for atrocities," saying:

His "beleaguered dictatorship (is) waging war against its own people and committing atrocities that demand not just condemnation but action by the outside world," accusing Gaddafi of committing genocide based on mostly unverified reports, according to reliable independent in-country sources. Nonetheless, the Post endorses "regime change" and International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecution, ignoring far greater Bush and Obama administration crimes, ongoing daily but not reported.

On March 2, a Wall Street Journal editorial headlined, "The Reluctant American," saying:

"The moral and strategic case for US leadership in Libya is obvious. A terrorist regime is slaughtering its people who will appreciate America's support and protection. A bloody civil war could create chaos that turns Libya into a northern African failed state, an ideal home for terrorist groups. The US should support a provisional government that can take over when the regime collapses....What is Obama waiting for?"

Ask beleaguered Iraqis and Afghans if they appreciate US intervention, occupation, mass destruction, genocide, depravation, disease, and for many living early deaths! Ask them if they recommend this for Libyans! Ask them if they prefer America to Saddam and Taliban rulers!

Ask Kosovars and Serbs! Ask Koreans and Southeast Asians with long memories! Ask Central and Latin Americans! Ask Somalis and other African nationals! Ask Palestinians! Ask Libyans if they know what awaits them if America intervenes! If not, explain and let them decide! It won't for Washington's military option, growing more imminent daily.

On February 28, New York writers Mark Landler and Thom Shanker headlined, "US Readies Military Options on Libya," saying:

"The United States began moving warships toward Libya and froze $30 billion in (its) assets on Monday," ahead of plundering them, Libyan oil, and other resources, not mentioned in The Times report.

Conflict looks increasingly likely. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton want Gaddafi out "without further violence or delay." "No option is off the table," said Clinton, stopping just short of declaring war. Secretaries of State can't do it. Neither can presidents, but it hasn't stopped them since December 8, 1941, the last time America legally went to war.

In meetings with NATO allies, said The Times, "European officials have resisted military action," but didn't rule it out. "Should NATO get involved in a civil war to the south of the Mediterranean," asked French Prime Minister Francosi Fillon? "It is a question that at least merits some reflection before being launched," weasel words perhaps ahead of proceeding.

Pentagon officials want an international action mandate, either from NATO or the UN, usually easily pressured to get. War winds are blowing. Expect anything ahead, especially if misreporting incites it the way it precedes all US wars.

Notable was Al Jazeera's March 1 report headlining: "Battles rage in Libya," saying:

Gaddifi's forces stepped up attacks, including "fighter jets bomb(ing) an ammunition depot in the eastern city of Ajdabiya." Up to 2,000 deaths were reported in Tripoli. Many thousands fled. Gaddafi remains defiant.

Most of what Al Jajeera and Western media report isn't verified. Yet it's inflammatory enough to stoke war for "humanitarian intervention," the usual bogus reason America and Western nations use, the same one earlier for Iraq, Afghanistan and other imperial interventions. Affected nations are never the same.

Breaching Libyan Sovereignty

Britain and Germany already launched air operations to evacuate their citizens. France is sending two or more planeloads of aid to opposition forces in Benghazi. Italy suspended its Libyan nonaggression treaty, saying the state no longer exists, an outrageous assertion.

In a BBC interview, Gaddafi called Western actions "betrayal," adding: "They have no morals." Indeed not and never did, despite Big Oil profiting handsomely in Libya, and Gaddafi offering his security forces for America's "war on terror."

Nonetheless, he's targeted for removal, State Department spokesman PJ Crowley saying US officials have "been reaching out...to a range of figures within the opposition." Hillary Clinton added: "We are going to be ready and prepared to offer any kind of assistance that anyone wishes to have from the US." Nothing is ruled out, including weapons, intervention and war.

Nothing is said about client regimes engaged in similar or worse practices, including killing, arresting, torturing, and otherwise abusing thousands of its citizens. Decades of Israeli atrocities are ignored. So are those of Iraq and Afghanistan puppet governments, proxy force belligerence in Somalia and elsewhere, and numerous global client states doing the same things.

Only outlier leaders are vilified, in Gaddafi's case an embraced one now betrayed for broader aims. Washington seeks greater regional dominance. Doing it requires compliant leaders, willing to let America and European nations colonize their countries, plunder their resources, exploit their people, and provide locations for new Pentagon bases. For six and half million Libyans, that awaits them as Washington moves in for the kill.

Final Comments

According to Russia Today (RT) television:

Russia's military has been monitoring Libya by satellite since unrest began for accurate information about what, in fact, is ongoing. Its Joint Staff confirms no evidence of air strikes or destruction on the ground. Reports from US media, BBC, other Western sources, and Al Jazeera are entirely bogus.

Writer Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, a Middle East/Central Asian special maintains reliable Libyan contacts, essential for accurate accounts on the ground.

On March 2, he said the following:

-- "Qaddafi still has control over much of the country."

-- "There are claims that cities have fallen, but in reality old videos or (ones) of other cities are being shown (in airing) these reports....to the public."

-- "The words 'claim' and 'claimed' are now systematically being used....to (corroborate) distorted or incorrect information."

-- World attention is on Libya, excluding other vital events "in the Arab world - such as the continued protests and demands of the Egyptian people (and others regionally) for authentic democracy," jobs, better wages, and other social issues.

-- "Reports have been made (about) fighting in Tripoli, the Libyan capital, (saying) parts of it have fallen, when it has been peaceful for days."

-- "On February 26, 2011, claims were (falsely) made that all the main cities were not in Qaddafi's control." In fact, he controls the following ones: "Sabha (in central Libya), Sirt/Surt (on the coastal mid-point of Libya), Ghat (on the southern border with Algeria), Al-Jufra, Al-Azizya (close to Tripoli) and Tripoli itself."

-- Media reports ignore Qaddafi "trying to negotiate with the places not under his control."

-- Most important: Outrageous misreporting persists, "blowing the violence out of proportion to justify foreign intervention."

It's coming - Washington-led naked aggression justified as "humanitarian intervention." In fact, it's imperial lawlessness against another target before advancing to the next one.

While one-sidely focusing on Libya, Western media ignore the March 1 Amnesty International (AI) report titled, "Tunisia in Revolt: State Violence during Anti Government Protests," saying:

During December and January protests, Tunisian security forces engaged in "unlawful killings and acts of brutality....act(ing) with reckless disregard for human life in all too many cases," according to Malcolm Smart, AI's Middle East and North African program director.

"People detained by the security forces were also systematically beaten or subjected to other ill-treatment, according to (corroborated) evidence" obtained. Innocent bystanders were killed in cold blood, some shot from behind. Death, injury and arrest numbers are far higher than acknowledged. Major media sources, including Al Jazeera, largely suppress this.

Brutal Egyptian military treatment is also ignored, including mass arrests, disappearances and torture. An Egyptian human rights group said thousands are in military custody. Many have been beaten or tortured. US media ignored Egypt after Mubarak was ousted, despite protests, strikes and violence continuing after a brief quiet period.

On February 15, AI condemned Bahrain's "heavy-handed....excessive police force" violence, including killings against peaceful protesters. An eyewitness said police, without provocation, opened fire on demonstrators, wanting a new constitution and democratically elected government.

In its January 11 report titled, "Crackdown in Bahrain: human rights at the crossroads," AI cited serious human rights abuses, including suppressing free expression, closing critical web sites, and banning opposition publications, besides arrests, killings, beatings and other abuses.

US major media reports suppress client regime crimes. Only leaders Washington opposes draw attention, mostly by distorted misreporting. Major focus now is on Gaddafi to provide legitimacy for imperial intervention. As issue is replacing one despot with another willing to open Libya to Western colonization, ahead of regional expansion for greater plunder, exploitation and profits.

Arabs and North Africans want democratic change. Washington and Western allies plan raw power to suppress it. Battle lines are drawn. Sustained popular resistance is essential for real reform, what people want, not dark forces allied against them repressively, especially America treating all developing countries as exploitable low-hanging fruit. What better time than now to stop it.

* Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon.

By Maria Rainier* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Just one day after blaming Bin Ladin and al-Qaeda for arming Libyan youngsters and spurring them with drugs and alcohol to "destruction and sabotage," Col Moammar Gadhafi appeared at Green Square in Tripoli to announce that he would "open the arms depot so all Libyans and tribes become armed."

NPR says that Gadhafi's civilian supporters have already taken full advantage of their brawn. Many opened fire with automatic and anti-aircraft weapons from rooftops and on street level on Friday during demonstrations. Multiple deaths have been reported by witnesses who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Since Friday, NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro says that "security forces, irregular troops allied to Gadhafi [have been] firing on demonstrators in many neighborhoods." Militias have allegedly been using ambulances for transportation. The wounded remain on the streets.

Seif al-Islam, Gadhafi's son, claims that the firefight was only "fireworks." Meanwhile, the capital is allegedly "calm ... everything is peaceful" with no casualties.

NPR further reports that later on Friday, forces backing Gadhafi went east to attack Misrata Air Base on Libya's coastline. The base had been taken by rebels, and much east of Sirte (a Gadhafi stronghold) is currently under opposition control. As of Saturday, February 26, they still held much of the base and had had captured two fighters, including a senior officer.

Gadhafi's Cheap Shot

Earlier, on February 24, Gadhafi took what BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says is a cheap shot by blaming al-Qaeda for the recent uprisings in the Middle East.

"You should not listen to Bin Ladin and his followers," Gadhafi advised, addressing the residents of al-Zawiya, where heavy gunfire and a case of arson were recently reported. "It is obvious now that this issue is run by Al-Quaeda. Those armed youngsters, our children, are incited by people who are wanted by America and the Western world."

If this was an ego stroke for listening American officials, Obama didn't seem to be swayed when he signed the executive order to freeze Gadhafi's and his children's assets in the US. The sanctions also apply to the Libyan government. Obama added his signature hours after the last plane full of US citizens took off for Turkey on February 24^th after temporarily abandoning their embassy in Tripoli.

Economic Sanctions Not Likely to Sway Gadhafi

How Gadhafi will respond to the economic sanction is predictable, but not in the US's or UN's favor. NPR's Peter Kenyon reports from Cairo, "The Gadhafi family is quite used to being isolated and shunned and their defiant tone indicates that economic sanctions will have little effect."

Meanwhile, Gadhafi insists Libya's rebellion is different from Egypt's and Tunisia's, since the people of Libya had committees and therefore their paths in their own hands. It seems Gadhafi thought it only fair that he put guns in the hands of his supporters.

"This is your country and it is up to you how to deal with it," he said. "Those inciting are very few in numbers and we have to capture them. . . . [They are] trigger happy and they shoot especially when they are stoned with drugs."

Cheap shot, indeed. The jihadist movement within the Middle East has been pushed aside amidst recent popular uprisings. Religion, according to BBC, has hardly played a role. This is merely Gadhafi putting on a hero's cape while standing in a pool of blood.

The US and UN are currently pondering an international response.

* Maria Rainier is a freelance writer and blog junkie. She is currently a resident blogger at First in Education where she writes about education, online degrees, and what it takes to succeed as a student getting an online associates degree remotely from home. In her spare time, she enjoys square-foot gardening, swimming, and avoiding her laptop.

By Mohamed Khodr* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

"This must be a world of democracy and respect for human rights, a world freed from the horrors of poverty, hunger, deprivation and ignorance, relieved of the threat and the scourge of civil wars and external aggression and unburdened of the great tragedy of millions forced to become refugees"
--Nelson Mandela, Acceptance Speech of Nobel Peace Prize, 1993

Four Arab Dictators from Left to Right: Zine El Abidine Ben Ali (Tunis: GONE); Ali Abdullah Saleh (Yemen: On the Way); Muammar Al Gaddafi (Libya: On the Way); Hosni Mubarak (Egypt: GONE)

What a difference a few decades make in the Arab world that had patriotic heroes fighting European colonialism in the past only to replace such occupiers with homegrown dictators. What a difference between the martyred, beloved, highly intelligent, well educated, and revered leader of Libya's revolt against Italy, Omar Al Mukhtar, and today's mad delusional psychotic leader of Libya, Muammar Al Gaddafi.

"We the Mujahids (fighters) swore to Allah that we would fight until we die one after the other. We do not surrender nor do we quit. I have never surrendered and I will continue to fight"
–Omar AlMukhtar; A hero fighting foreign occupiers

"I am a fighter, a revolutionary from tents... I will die as a martyr at the end to my last drop of blood....You men and women who love Gaddafi... Get out of your homes and fill the streets....Leave your homes and attack them in their lairs. The police cordons will be lifted, go out and fight them ...for the defense of the revolution and the defense of Gaddafi."
– Muammar Al Gaddafi, on State TV, February 22, 2011; A madman fighting and killing his own people.

The greatest gain from today's Arab Revolutions sweeping across the Middle East is the "Arab Awakening"; from a demoralized dormancy of mind and spirit and a stagnation from hope. The Arab youth are strong, determined, and dedicated to dust off their silence and subservience to tyrants who never knew nor cared that they had a population to serve. They served themselves; they served America's interests and thereby served Israel.

My beloved Arab brothers and sisters, be steadfast, be patient, and never surrender again to fear; with God's promise to help those oppressed you will be victorious. Victory only comes from God. Many of you may die or be injured, but no revolution is without sacrifice, without suffering, hunger, and thirst, Many more have died over the decade's rule of European colonialists, American invasions and hegemony, Israeli genocides, and most egregious of all, at the hands of our tyrannical dictators who like all oppressors see the lives of their people as cheap and expendable. Millions of Arabs and Muslims have been killed by the West, Israel, and their tyrants. They are the forgotten "Unpeople", but not in the hearts and minds of their families, their brethren, and in the larger Arab and Muslim world. They all will be held accountable on this earth and in the hereafter. With divine justice they are the ultimate losers not the martyred innocent who died as victims of western arrogant greed.

Europe and the U.S.'s urgent fear concerning Libya's revolution has nothing to do with civilian casualties and everything to do with the rise in gas prices. The western economies are in a recession and a rise in gas prices could sink them deeper into recession thereby jeopardizing the reelection chances of Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, and others. Hence the contemplation of a military intervention although they are highly sensitive and aware that such an operation is not viewed as another Iraqi invasion and occupation. The Arab world must, must reject any western intervention and continue its revolts against their American doormats, i.e. their tyrants, fighting on their own to liberate their countries. If you let a western nation into your life be prepared to live in perpetual occupation and domination.

The U.S. will never leave Iraq given that it has spent trillions of dollars to "liberate" it from Saddam and its oil The same applies in Afghanistan. God willing all Arab nations will achieve their freedom, democracy, and respect for human rights. Once national, patriotic, and democratically elected governments, legislatures and an independent Judicial system are established, a total reassessment and revision of political, economic, military, social and infrastructure development is done. Budget priorities are set with an eye to return much of the trillions of dollars currently residing in western government bonds, banks, and financial institutions. Domestic and Foreign policies are developed in the national interest not to serve foreign interests. They must support the development of the private sector rather than continue the wasteful and corrupt public sector, currently the major employer in the region. Education must be the number one priority, especially for girls, for it is the sole provider of financial and social stability and future progress. The health sector is non-existent and measures must be developed to ensure quality primary, preventive, and tertiary care is provided.

The Arab world is facing a massive crisis of water shortage which must be addressed immediately. The region must be viewed as starting from scratch and thus short and long term plans must be developed utilizing the expertise of national and international institutions especially from nations that have turned their economies around or developed rapidly since their near total destruction during World War II. People must feel free and secure in their lives thus basic freedoms must be constitutionally guaranteed and all previous security, police, and intelligence services used by the tyrants to oppress their populace must be eliminated immediately. We can take the best the west has to offer in education, industry, technology, and administration but never comprise our faith, culture, or values.

Omar AlMukhtar

Our tyrants for too long have supplied Europe the U.S. and Israel with cheap gas and oil. For too long they've kept America's economy flourishing through the purchase of hundreds of billions of military arms that are simply stored in desert hangers due to a most illiterate, corrupt, untrained, well compensated and fat military leaders who couldn't shoot straight if a target is at arms length. Thus the Arabs have four vital resources to use as political and economic leverage on the West, especially the United States.

1. Oil
2. Military Weapon Sales
3. Trillions of Dollars invested in U.S. Treasury Bonds, Banks, Financial Institutions, Corporations, Real Estate, Media, Casinos, Hotels, and Hollywood.
4. Vast Importation of diverse American and European products.

Western nations are money driven and money is their driving "national interest". They would sell and drop their mothers to make money or prevent the loss of profit. With a legal, smart, rational, and selective strategies of a mixture of political, economic, and military pressure with the subtle hint that Arab resources are easily marketed elsewhere if political gains that serve the Arab national interest are not met, there is no doubt that America will respond positively.

No politician wants to be responsible for an economic crisis; not while America is collapsing under the overwhelming weight of foreign debt, enormous trade and budget deficits at all government levels, high unemployment, and an ever growing gap between the rich and the poor. China is a prime example of how to use economic policies to extract American concessions. If the Arab world, both governments and populations, are united and fully dedicated to such strategies in an unwavering manner with the backbone and courage to say 'NO' to America's demands, America will capitulate.

We must keep in mind that America's demographics will undergo a historic change within forty years where today's minorities will become the majority and thus potentially can become the majority in the government. Building strong bridges with these minority communities now will bring important dividends in the future.

Now, let's take a leap of faith after assuming such a scenario is achieved. A free Arab world with enough strength and pressure on the United States can only lead to the greatest freedom of all in modern world history-the FREEDOM OF PALESTINE-from the grip of Israel and its domination of U.S. politics. America for decades has had its cake and eaten it too. It managed to blindly support the rogue terroristic State of Israel as it commits constant genocides, ethnic cleansing, and illegal occupation of Palestine, a land to which it has no claim, given that the Jews of today are not the Hebrews of the Bible promised a land in Palestine; while simultaneously owning the silent submissive Arab Tyrants who have greedily and cowardly surrendered to America's will. ENOUGH! There needs to be a heavy cost to America for it to change its policies in the Middle East. Given that it owns the Arab tyrants it can easily ignore the legitimate and just cause of the Palestinians and simply concentrate on meeting the needs and demands of Israel and its powerful Israeli lobbies, especially the feared AIPAC, America's shadow government, that is destroying it from within.

A free Arab world that has political, economic, and military unity can easily break the shackles and bond between the U.S. and Israel. Here's what the U.S. will face as a choice.

EITHER: Choose Israel and continue your loss of independence to a foreign nation that you've showered with trillions of dollars, the latest weapons and technology, allowed its constant spying on government national secrets as well as industrial espionage, cast countless Vetoes to protect its militaristic Zionist expansionism and send your youth and treasure to fight its enemies, be internationally and constantly embarrassed by having to support it even when it commits "war crimes", as well as have an annual trade deficit where you are forced to buy its products while it receives any American product free. Israel has nothing to offer the U.S. except constant wars.

OR: Partner with the Arab and Muslim world in a mutually beneficial relationship that begins with an end to America's blind support of Israel and together with the rest of the world demand once and for all Israel end its occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem and thus establish a FREE INDEPENDENT PALESTINE. If it refuses then it must be isolated with the U.N. Security Council, imposing trade and travel sanctions, cut off of all financial, military and intelligence aid it receives from any nation, and freeze all its financial assets around the world. Much like America does quite easily against Arab and Muslim nations, from Iraq, to Iran, Sudan, Syria, Somalia, Libya, and Afghanistan.

Here's what America will receive in return for this partnership compared to Israel:

Oil-Military Sales-Vast Import of products by 57 Muslim nations with sales to 1.6 Billion Muslims (compared to Israel's 6 million Jews) -Investments in America-Employment for over one million Americans in the oil and petrochemical industry-and peace in the Middle East because in a democratic Arab and Muslim world all extremist and terrorist groups will end either peacefully or by war. America, your passionate attachment to Israel is the greatest threat to your national interest and security. America, it's your choice.

The Arab Muslim world provides you with enormous benefits while Israel serves as a constant liability to your national interest. To my Arab Christian and Muslim brothers and sisters I pray that in victory you do not take vengeance into your own hands. Be gentle and magnanimous to your enemies but seek Justice in court for the murderers, rapists, thieves, and traitors who killed, harmed, raped, stole, or injured the innocent. That is what our beautiful faith and beloved Prophet taught us.

* Mohamed Khodr is an American Muslim born in the Middle East. He is a political activist who frequently writes on the plight of Palestinians living under the brutal occupation of Israel, U.S. Foreign Policy, Islam, and Arab politics.

By Stephen Lendman * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

In December 2010, the Adalah Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel published a study titled, "Inequality Report: The Palestinian Arab Minority in Israel," [PDF] saying:

Affecting Jews as well, it takes many forms, including:

• privileged v. deprived groups;
• Western Jews (Ashkenzim) v. Eastern ones (Mizrakhim);
• men v. women;
• Israeli-born Jews (Sabar) v. immigrant ones (Olim);
• Orthodox v. secular Jews;
• urban v. rural ones;
• progressive v. hardline extremists;
• gay v. straight, and so forth.

Mostly, it represents majority Jews against minority (largely Muslim) Israeli Arabs, indigenous people living in their historic homeland, comprising 20% of the population or about 1.2 million people, excluding East Jerusalem and Golan.

Under international law, they're considered a national, ethnic, linguistic and religious minority, but not under Israel's Basic Laws. As a result, they face "compound discrimination" as non-Jews, as well as for belonging to one or more sub-groups. For example, women, Bedouins, the disabled or elderly.

Institutionalized inequality excludes them from state resources, services and positions of power, including:

Legalized Inequality

As citizens, they're denied equality and freedom in a Jewish state. Over 30 laws directly or indirectly discriminate besides new ones at various stages in the legislative process.

Citizenship

It affords no equality, granting it solely to Jews, and under a new law, it may be lost for reasons alleging "disloyalty" or "breach of trust."

Income/Poverty

Affecting over half of Arab families, they're disproportionately poor compared to one-fifth of Jews. Arab towns, villages and Bedouin communities are the poorest.

Redistribution of Resources and Social Welfare

Resources are disproportionately allocated to Jews, a policy institutionalizing inequality.

Employment

Arabs are discriminated against with regard to work opportunities, pay, and conditions, largely because of entrenched structural barriers, especially affecting women, the disabled, and other sub-groups. Failure to perform military service impedes men, even when no connection between it and job qualifications exist.

Arabs are also underrepresented in civil service jobs, Israel's largest employer. They constitute about 6% of public employees, despite affirmative action laws requiring fair representation.

Land

Longstanding and more recent laws deprive them of its access and use. Admissions committees in many agricultural and community towns exclude them based on alleged "social unsuitability," amounting to legalized apartheid.

As a result, Arab towns and villages suffer severe overcrowding, their municipalities having jurisdiction over only 2.5% of total state land. Moreover, since 1948, about 600 Jewish municipalities were established, no Arab ones.

Education

Israel's Ministry of Education has centralized control, excluding Arab educators from decision-making authority. Moreover, State Education Law sets objectives, emphasizing Jewish history and culture. Though Arabs represent 25% of school children, funding for them is far less than for Jews.

Arabic Language

Though an official state language, it holds vastly inferior status to Hebrew, including regarding resources allocated for its use.

Health

On average, Jewish life expectancy exceeds Arabs who face much higher mortality rates, especially past age 60. In addition, Palestinian infant mortality is double that for Jews. Poorer Arab communities are especially impacted, lacking facilities to keep pace with needs.

Political Participation

Arabs have unequal access to all areas of public life and decision-making, including the legislature, judiciary, and civil service. Moreover, Israel's Attorney General and extremist MKs tried to disqualify Arab parties from political participation, and overall limit their political voices.

In addition, legislation targets free movement and speech, including attempts to restrict political travel to Arab nations called "enemy states." Further, police routinely use force to arrest Palestinian demonstrators to silence dissent.

"Years of deliberate discrimination, unequal citizenship and a limited voice in the political system have left Palestinian citizens" feeling vulnerable, marginalized, insecure and distrustful of state authority, exacerbated by being considered a "fifth column."

Framework of Legalized Inequality

Israel's Basic Laws afford rights solely to Jews. Arabs clearly aren't wanted so aren't treated equally under the law. As a result, institutionalized discrimination harms them in all aspects of daily life, including citizenship and family unification rights, forcing them to live apart or insecure under threat of separation.

A Case Study of Discriminatory Resource Allocation

Government provides "budget balancing grants" to municipalities and local councils to fund essential services. Arab communities are systematically cheated despite far greater need.

The current system affords extra grants to towns absorbing new Jewish immigrants, so-called "front line" communities, and others called "socially diverse," excluding Arab ones considered homogeneous. Nearly always, Jewish communities are helped. Adalah's 2001 Supreme Court petition for redress is still pending.

Further, Amendment 146 to the Income Tax Act affords Israeli communities near Gaza and others exemptions for political reasons. All Arab towns and villages were excluded.

A Case Study of Military Service Excluding Arabs from Railway Inspection Work

In 2009, the Israeli Railway Company (IRC) and another firm employing guards concluded an agreement, excluding applicants with no military service from consideration. Over 130 Arab citizens held guard positions. The decision threatened their status or ability to obtain future employment. A temporary September 2009 court injunction prevented those employed from being fired. After a follow-up February 2010 hearing, the Railway Company cancelled the exclusionary provisions.

A Case Study of Arab Family Unsuitability to Live in Rakefet

Fatina and Ahmed Zubeidat hold Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design College of Architecture degrees with distinction. Both are practicing architects. After marrying in 2006, they applied to live in Rakefet, located in Misgav in northern Israel. Its admissions committee requires applicants take an acceptance test. It excluded them on grounds of "social unsuitability." In September 2007, Adalah petitioned Israel's Supreme Court, demanding admissions committees be abolished. In October, the Court ordered Rakeft set aside land for the family, pending a final decision. It's still pending.

A Case Study of Unrecognized Bedouin Al Araqib Village Destruction

On July 27, 2010, al-Araqib residents were awakened at dawn, surrounded by police carrying guns, tear gas, truncheons and other arms. Declaring the village a "closed area," its 250 residents were ordered out in two minutes, warned that resistance would forcibly remove them.

Almost immediately, 1,300 police officers began demolishing homes while residents tried salvaging belongings. All 45 houses were bulldozed. Villagers were displaced and their belongings confiscated. Police also uprooted 4,500 olive trees. Tax Authority representatives accompanied police, seizing property of indebted residents.

No prior warnings were given. A week later, the village was destroyed a second time, police again using excessive force, including pushing, stomping, dragging, assaulting, and cursing people present at the time. Adalah immediately demanded a criminal investigation. Numerous other villages have also been targeted. None so far have gotten redress.

A Case Study of a Possible First Ever Unrecognized Bedouin Village High School

None exist in any unrecognized Bedouin village. In Abu Tulul region, El-Shihabi is home to about 12,000 Bedouin citizens. About 750 are of high school age. However, only about 170 can attend 12 - 15 km away, requiring public or other transportation to reach.

In 2005, Adalah petitioned Israel's Supreme Court for 35 Bedouin girls and six local NGOs, demanding an accessible high school be built nearby. In January 2007, the Court ruled for one to begin operating on September 1, 2009 to no avail. On September 22, 2009, Adalah again petitioned for enforcement, including that non-implementation be considered in contempt of court.

A Case Study of Mother and Child Clinic Closures

In October 2009, Israel's Ministry of Health (MOH) closed clinics in three unrecognized villages - Qasr el-Ser, Abu Tlul and Wadi el-Niam. They specialize in post-natal care with three others established after Adalah's successful 1997 Supreme Court petition.

MOH's reasons for closure were bogus. As a result, the health and lives of thousands of pregnant Bedouin women, new mothers and their babies are at risk. On December 16, 2009, Adalah petitioned Israel's Supreme Court, demanding clinics remain open. On August 11, 2010, two reopened. The other is still closed.

Case Study about Protesters Killed in October 2000

In October 2000, at the start of the Second Intifada, police killed 13 unarmed Palestinians, protesting occupation brutality. Snipers shot most in the head or chest. Hundreds of others were injured and over 1,000 arrested. Despite Or Commission recommendations, no one was held responsible. Over 10 years later, no commander, soldier, policeman, or political official was charged with cold-blooded murder. Given impunity, they remain safe from prosecution.

Legitimate Political Activity Criminalized

In November 2009, Israel's Attorney General indicted Arab MK Mohammed Barakeh, leader of the Democratic Front for Peace and Equality (Hadash), for participating in four nonviolent protests against Israel's Separation Wall, the 2006 Lebanon war, and its officials remaining unaccountable for the October 2000 killings.

In January 2010, the Knesset House Committee voted to strip Tajammoa/Balad party MK Sa'id Naffaa of his parliamentary immunity. Israel's Attorney General then indicted him for visiting Syria in September 2007 as part of a holy site pilgrimage. Charges included contact with a foreign agent.

Earlier, MK Azmi Bishara, then National Democratic Assembly/Balad head, was indicted for political speech -for "supporting a terrorist organization (Hezbollah)." In fact, he merely analyzed factors leading to Israel's southern Lebanon occupation and right to resist it. Charges followed the Knesset voting to strip him of parliamentary immunity. At the time, it was unprecedented in Israeli politics. In February 2006, Israel's Supreme Court dismissed all charges unanimously.

Nonetheless, on June 7, 2010, the Knesset House Committee revoked Tajammoa/Balad member Haneen Zoabi's parliamentary privileges for participating in the May 2010 Gaza Freedom Flotilla. As a result, she lost her diplomatic passport, overseas travel privileges, and right to have the Knesset pay her legal expenses in case of criminal prosecution. Overall, she was viciously assailed. Called a "terrorist" and "traitor," extremist ministers and MKs wanted, but failed, to have her Knesset membership and citizenship revoked.

Two recent articles explained Israel's gross mistreatment of Israeli Arab citizens.

Socially, politically and economically they're denied rights for being Arabs in a Jewish state, affording them solely to Jews. Increasingly less of them, in fact, benefit under predatory neoliberal harshness, rewarding the rich, abandoning the rest.

As a result, Israel is a nation of extreme, growing inequality, mostly affecting Arabs. Studies, in fact, found Israel, America and Britain the most unequal western societies, an indictment of neoliberal betrayal.

Moreover, Muslims face violent and ad hominem attacks, with no protections afforded them. As a result, some call Israel a failed state, more hypocrisy than democracy, resembling how Arundhati Roy once described India, calling it a "limbless, headless, soulless torso left bleeding under the butcher's clever with a flag driven deep into her mutilated heart."

For Israeli Arabs, it's daily reality. For Occupied Palestinians, its worse. For besieged Gazans, it's catastrophic because world leaders abandoned them.

A Final Comment

On February 25, a full Spanish High Court panel (its Audencia Nacional) rejected a Spanish prosecutor's attempt to halt investigation into America's involvement in torture at Guantanamo. In response, the Center for Constitutional Rights said:

"This is a monumental decision that will enable a Spanish judge to continue a case on the 'authorized and systemic plan of torture and ill treatment' by US officials at Guantanamo." Former commanding officer Gen. Geoffrey Miller "has already been implicated, and the case will surely move up the chain of command."

Importantly, "this will be the first real investigation of the US torture program....This is a victory for accountability and a blow against impunity." CCR applauded Spain's High Court decision "for not bowing to political pressure and for undertaking what may be the most important investigation in decades."

If successful, might other unindicted US and Israeli war criminals be far behind? Also, will courageous lawyers like persecuted Paul Bergrin be vindicated? At times, justice moves in slow, incremental steps. Perhaps this is a first major one.

* Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon.

Illustration by Carlos Latuff

Gunfire in the suburbs – and hunger and rumour in the capital as thousands race for last tickets out of a city sinking into anarchy

By Robert Fisk

Up to 15,000 men, women and children besieged Tripoli's international airport last night, shouting and screaming for seats on the few airliners still prepared to fly to Muammar Gaddafi's rump state, paying Libyan police bribe after bribe to reach the ticket desks in a rain-soaked mob of hungry, desperate families. Many were trampled as Libyan security men savagely beat those who pushed their way to the front.

Among them were Gaddafi's fellow Arabs, thousands of them Egyptians, some of whom had been living at the airport for two days without food or sanitation. The place stank of faeces and urine and fear. Yet a 45-minute visit into the city for a new airline ticket to another destination is the only chance to see Gaddafi's capital if you are a "dog" of the international press.

There was little sign of opposition to the Great Leader. Squads of young men with Kalashnikov rifles stood on the side roads next to barricades of upturned chairs and wooden doors. But these were pro-Gaddafi vigilantes – a faint echo of the armed Egyptian "neighbourhood guard" I saw in Cairo a month ago – and had pinned photographs of their leader's infamous Green Book to their checkpoint signs.

There is little food in Tripoli, and over the city there fell a blanket of drab, sullen rain. It guttered onto an empty Green Square and down the Italianate streets of the old capital of Tripolitania. But there were no tanks, no armoured personnel carriers, no soldiers, not a fighter plane in the air; just a few police and elderly men and women walking the pavements – a numbed populace. Sadly for the West and for the people of the free city of Benghazi, Libya's capital appeared as quiet as any dictator would wish.

But this is an illusion. Petrol and food prices have trebled; entire towns outside Tripoli have been torn apart by fighting between pro- and anti-Gaddafi forces. In the suburbs of the city, especially in the Noufreen district, militias fought for 24 hours on Sunday with machine guns and pistols, a battle the Gadaffi forces won. In the end, the exodus of expatriates will do far more than street warfare to bring down the regime.

I was told that at least 30,000 Turks, who make up the bulk of the Libyan construction and engineering industry, have now fled the capital, along with tens of thousands of other foreign workers. On my own aircraft out of Tripoli, an evacuation flight to Europe, there were Polish, German, Japanese and Italian businessmen, all of whom told me they had closed down major companies in the past week. Worse still for Gaddafi, the oil, chemical and uranium fields of Libya lie to the south of "liberated" Benghazi. Gaddafi's hungry capital controls only water resources, so a temporary division of Libya, which may have entered Gaddafi's mind, would not be sustainable. Libyans and expatriates I spoke to yesterday said they thought he was clinically insane, but they expressed more anger at his son, Saif al-Islam. "We thought Saif was the new light, the 'liberal'", a Libyan businessman sad to me. "Now we realise he is crazier and more cruel than his father."

The panic that has now taken hold in what is left of Gaddafi's Libya was all too evident at the airport. In the crush of people fighting for tickets, one man, witnessed by an evacuated Tokyo car-dealer, was beaten so viciously on the head that "his face fell apart".

Talking to Libyans in Tripoli and expatriates at the airport, it is clear that neither tanks nor armour were used in the streets of Tripoli. Air attacks targeted Benghazi and other towns, but not the capital. Yet all spoke of a wave of looting and arson by Libyans who believed that with the fall of Benghazi, Gaddafi was finished and the country open to anarchy.

The centre of the city was largely closed up. All foreign offices have been shut including overseas airlines, and every bakery I saw was shuttered. Rumours abound that members of Gaddafi's family are trying to flee abroad. Although William Hague's ramblings about Gaddafi's flight to Venezuela have been disproved, I spoke to a number of Libyans who believed that Burkina Faso might be his only viable retreat. Two nights ago, a Libyan private jet approached Beirut airport with a request to land but was refused permission when the crew declined to identify their eight passengers. And last night, a Libyan Arab Airlines flight reported by Al Jazeera to be carrying Gaddafi's daughter, Aisha, was refused permission to land in Malta.

Gaddafi is blamed by Shia Muslims in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran for the murder of Imam Moussa Sadr, a supposedly charismatic divine who unwisely accepted an invitation to visit Gaddafi in 1978 and, after an apparent argument about money, was never seen again. Nor was a Lebanese journalist accompanying him on the trip.

While dark humour has never been a strong quality in Libyans, there was one moment at Tripoli airport yesterday which proved it does exist. An incoming passenger from a Libyan Arab Airlines flight at the front of an immigration queue bellowed out: "And long life to our great leader Muammar Gaddafi." Then he burst into laughter – and the immigration officers did the same.

By Neve Gordon * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Illustration by Carlos Latuff

During the climatic days of the unprecedented demonstrations, television news programmes spent most of their airtime covering the protests, while the daily papers dedicated half the news and opinion pages to the unfolding events.

Rather than excitement at watching history in the making, however, the dominant attitude here, particularly on television, was of anxiety – a sense that the developments in Egypt were inimical to Israel's interests. Egypt's revolution, in other words, was bad news.

It took a while for Israel's experts on "Arab affairs" to get a grip on what was happening. During the early days of unrest, the recurrent refrain was that "Egypt is not Tunis".

Commentators assured the public that the security apparatuses in Egypt are loyal to the regime and that consequently there was little if any chance that President Hosni Mubarak's government would fall.

Media switch

Once it became clear that this line of analysis was erroneous, most commentators followed Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's lead and criticized President Barack Obama's administration for not supporting Mubarak. The Foreign News editor of one channel noted that: "The fact that the White House is permitting the protests is reason for worry;" while the prominent political analyst Ben Kaspit expressed his longing for President George W. Bush.

"We remember 2003 when George Bush invaded and took over Iraq with a sense of yearning", Ben Kaspit wrote, adding:

Libya immediately changed course and allied itself with the West. Iran suspended its military nuclear programme. Arafat was harnessed. Syria shook with fear. Not that the invasion of Iraq was a wise move (not at all, Iran is the real problem, not Iraq), but in the Middle East whoever does not walk around with a big bat in his hand receives the bat on his head.

Israeli commentators are equivocal on the issue of Egyptian democracy. One columnist explained that it takes years for democratic institutions to be established and for people to internalize the practices appropriate for democracy, while Amir Hazroni from the Israeli news website NRG went so far as to write an ode to colonialism:

When we try to think how and why the United States and the West lost Egypt, Tunis, Yemen and perhaps other countries in the Middle East, people forget that. The original sin began right after World War II, when a wonderful form of government that protected security and peace in the Middle East (and in other parts of the Third Word) departed from this world following pressure from the United States and Soviet Union... More than 60 years have passed since the Arab states and the countries of Africa were liberated from the "colonial yoke", but there still isn't an Arab university, an African scientist or a Middle Eastern consumer product that has made a mark on our world.

Fear and the Muslim Brotherhood

While only a few commentators are as reactionary as Hazroni, an Orientalist perspective permeated most of the discussion about Egypt, thus helping to bolster the already existing Jewish citizenry's fear of Islam. Political Islam is constantly presented and conceived as an ominous force that is antithetical to democracy.

Thus, in the eyes of Israeli analysts, the protestors – that Facebook and Twitter generation – are deserving of empathy but also extremely naïve. There is a shared sense that their fate will end up being identical to that of the Iranian intellectuals who led the protests against the Shah.

Channel Two's expert on "Arab affairs" explained that "The fact that you do not see the Muslim Brotherhood does not mean they are not there", and another expert warned his viewers not to "be misled by [Muhammad] ElBaradei's Viennese spirit, behind him is the Muslim Brotherhood".

According to these pundits, the Muslim Brotherhood made a tactical decision not to distribute Islamists banners or to take an active part in leading the protests. One commentator declared that if the Muslim Brotherhood wins, then "elections are the end of the [democratic] process, not its beginning," while an anchorman for Channel Ten asked former Minister Binyamin Ben Eliezer whether "the person who says to himself: 'How wonderful, at last the state of Egypt is a democracy,' is naïve?"

The minister responded:

Allow me even to laugh. We wanted a democracy in Iran and in Gaza. The person who talks like this is ignoring the fact that for over a decade there has been a struggle of giants between the Sunni and Shi'ah with tons of blood spilled. The person who talks about democracy does not live in the reality we live in.

Democratic threat

Ben-Eliezer's response is telling, not least because it is well known that Israel supported the Shah regime in Iran and has not proven itself to be a particularly staunch supporter of Palestinian democracy. Democracy in the Middle East is, after all, conceived by this and previous Israeli governments as a threat to Israel's interests.

Dan Margalit, a well-known commentator, made this point clear when he explained that Israel does not disapprove of a democracy in the largest Arab country but simply privileges Israel's peace agreement with Egypt over internal Arab affairs.

Israel, one should note, is not alone in this self-serving approach; most Western countries constantly lament the absence of democracy in the Arab world, while supporting the dictators and helping them remain in office.

In English this kind of approach has a very clear name: it is called hypocrisy.

* Neve Gordon, is a doctor of Politics and Government at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, who writes on issues relating to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and human rights.

Illustration by Carlos Latuff

By Mohamed Khodr* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Ghaddafi Will Go: 3 Down-19 to Go

In a few days, or less, Libya will be free from the 42 year rule of the mentally unstable, psychotic, arrogant, divisive, condescending, megalomaniacal leader and self proclaimed "King of Africa." –Muammar Al-Ghaddafi.

Unlike the deposed Tunisian and Egyptian leaders, Al Ghaddafi is despised by all other Arab tyrants. thus he'll have no home outside of Libya unless some African nation has pity on this butcher of his people. In just 5 days he's killed more than 300 civilians using snipers, secret police, Arab and African mercenaries, even his air force to bomb unarmed peaceful protesters

His son, Saif Al Islam, took to the airwaves on Sunday to give the most arrogant, incoherent, rambling and condescending speech---like father, like son.

In it he blamed outside agitators, Islamists, drugged men and children, drunkards, those taking hallucinogens. the Arab media, Facebook, emails, thugs hired by millionaire businessmen, and anything else he could think of on the spur of the moment. All Arab tyrants when faced with opposition use these lies to explain the protests and justify their murderous crackdown.

He said the army had to defend itself against these mobs and thus killed a few Libyans, much less than was reported.

He warned of a civil war and a division of Libya. Incredibly he gave credit to American oil companies for the unity of Libya. "American Oil Companies played a big part in unifying Libya. Who will manage this oil?"

He warned of Neo-Colonialism in Libya if an Islamic Government takes over (the bogeyman that frightens the West):

"The British FM called me. Be ready for a new colonial period from America and Britain. You think they will accept an Islamic Emirate here"

The West will come and occupy you. Europe & the West will not agree to chaos in Libya, to export chaos and drugs so they will occupy us."

But true to the family's tradition of eliminating and killing any opposition he threatened the Libyan people with this dire warning.

"Now comes the role of the National Guard and the Army...We will flight to the last man and woman and bullet. We will not lose Libya. We will not let Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya and BBC trick us."

This is a desperation speech. Al Gaddafi has lost Eastern Libya (Benghazi) with some military units joining the protesters. The largest tribe in Libya has supported his downfall and other tribes have cut off oil pipelines. Libyans by the tens of thousands are protesting in the capitol, Tripoli braving the bullets.

Shockingly but not unexpectedly, the U.S. and Europe took a few days to utter the mildest of comments against the slaughter of hundreds of Libyans and the injured thousands. They simply asked for "restraint" to avoid more deaths.

If one Israeli soldier was hit by a stone in his America paid boot thrown by an elderly women who just lost her seven children to an Israeli missile you can depend on Obama at 3 a.m. to come out to the Rose Garden and issue this statement:

"Let me be clear. Palestinian terrorism against innocent Israeli soldiers who are simply defending themselves and their lives against horrendous attacks must be condemned yesterday, today, and tomorrow. There is no room for such violence and terrorism at a time when Prime Minister Netanyahu and I are working hard to restart the Peace Process which unfortunately the Palestinians are refusing using the excuse that I vetoed a simple U.N. Security Council Resolution against "illegal" settlements, when in fact they are not "illegal", but as I've said all along, are "illegitimate". As our Ambassador to the U.N. Dr. Susan Rice so eloquently stated, passing such a Resolution would have led to more "illegitimate" settlements being built. Thank You."

Of Blood and Oil

With so many European and American oil companies doing business in Libya; Al Gadaffi can kill with impunity.

Ever since Oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Persian Gulf the region has endured European colonialism, Cold War competition, and finally total American hegemony of the region since 1956.

Oil is the life blood of the entire world but none more so historically than in Europe and the U.S. .Both are willing to launch wars and massacre millions if necessary to obtain cheap oil for their factories, transportation system, and personal vehicles. Without oil America's economy will die adding more fuel to the already bankrupt nation.

America has and will spill precious Arab blood to extract the oil from under their feet and sand dunes. That's what American Presidents since Franklin D. Roosevelt established as America's premiere "national interest" in the region.

President Roosevelt met with King Abdul Aziz bin Saud of Saudi Arabia in February 14, 1945 aboard the USS Quncy in the Red Sea to come to a simple agreement: You give us cheap oil, we'll protect your monarchy and we won't interfere in the Palestinian issue.

Later, President Jimmy Carter established The Carter Doctrine which declared the Persian Gulf and its oil fields of vital interest to the United States, and that any outside attempt to gain control in the area would be "repelled by use of any means necessary, including military force."

President Reagan established regional CENTCOM's (Central Commands around the world, renaming Carter's initial "Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force: RDJTF).

Today CENTCOM is based in Qatar while the Fifth Fleet is based in Bahrain with military bases in the United Arab Emirates and Oman, among other nations.

The main purpose of CENTCOM, other than prosecuting the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, is to protect the oil flow out of the Persian Gulf, 30% of the world's oil, and to contain any Iranian threat, even if it means the launching of an Israeli driven third American war.

Bottom Line:

America will protect its Oil Dictatorships even if it means the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Arabs. As former Secretary Madeleine Albright said in an interview with Leslie Stahl on the American TV Program "60 minutes" when asked about the death toll of Iraqi sanctions.

Lesley Stahl: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it." (60 Minutes (5/12/96)

To America the premiere policy in the MidEast is not establishing democracy but supporting and stabilizing the Status Quo.

American policy has always been short sighted, counter-productive, and frankly stupid in the Arab world.

Its umbilical cord ties to Israel where money and weapons flow from the American mother to the Israeli child has cost it dearly for 62 years.

Israel can do no wrong and American politicians are the most cowardly men and women in world politics, unable to even utter the word "no" to Israel as it unleashes American weapons into the hearts and brains of Palestinian children.

America's long term support of Arab dictators resides on the simpleton principle: As long as you give us cheap oil, allow our military bases in your lands, and fight "Islamic Fundamentalism", you may annihilate the entire population for all we care.

The revolutions sweeping the Arab world, and shortly the Muslim world, starting with Pakistan, are a direct result of such American political stupidity and imperialism in the region.

Submitting to Israel and its genocidal policies and providing protection to murderous Arab tyrants if not changed will be the undoing of American interests in the region.

Given America's political history it's not hopeful that America will change its policy in the near future, but once the Arab monarchies in the Persian Gulf and Saudi Arabia fall, America will be the biggest loser of these revolutions and it will pay the heaviest price for its blind subservience to Israel.

America, make room for China, India, Russia, Brazil, and Japan, which will rapidly dump you as fast as you dump your dictators once they're usefulness ends, in exchange for Arab oil and its economic survival.

Future beleaguered America generations will look upon this history and damn the day Israel occupied America and its lobby and Neocons ran its foreign policy.

"And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;"
--Star Spangled Banner, America's National Anthem

The Rockets and Bombs must end, our relation with Israel and dictators must end, and we must start a respectful mutually beneficial relationship with 1.6 billion Muslims yearning for freedom and peace, and who in unity will end all Muslim terroristic groups.

You're choice. Change now or forever hold your tongue and bombs. Time is running out.

* Mohamed Khodr is a political activist who frequently writes on the plight of Palestinians living under the brutal occupation of Israel, U.S. Foreign Policy, Islam, and Arab politics.

By Paul J. Balles * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

The demonstrations that brought down Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak earlier this month were facilitated by social media Web sites. In Cairo's Tahrir Square, protest art proclaimed (in Arabic): "We are the Men of Facebook." (Tara Todras-whitehill)

"Facts still matter..." said journalist and broadcaster Bill Moyers, quoting Thomas Jefferson, who proclaimed, "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government."

The revolution in Egypt provides evidence of a public well-informed by 30 years of mostly silent submission to the dictates of a self-serving regime.

Finally, when the silence yielded to a voice that said "Enough", the latest technology and social networking brought that voice to millions ready to protest and bring down the regime.

Their first unstinting demand was for Hosni Mubarak to leave. Mubarak, under his narcissistic spell, couldn't believe what he was seeing and hearing. He was the subject of a mental state that kept him denying reality and blind to the facts.

Moyers refers to research at the University of Michigan, which found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in new stories, they rarely changed their minds.

The same research found that "we often base our opinions on our beliefs ... and rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we choose to accept. They can cause us to twist facts so they fit our preconceived notions."

For instance, Egypt not only reeled from a dictator and self-decreed father of his people; Mubarak adamantly refused to be confused by the facts.

Egypt is also the seat of two very different mind-sets that will resist each other. There's the people's mind-set that believes the country needs a new constitution, fair elections and new leaders.

Then there are the old military leaders who know that the existing constitution has benefitted them; and they now believe they are the fathers to the people.

There are numerous other examples of minds closed to facts. In America, for instance, a group referred to as "birthers" believe that Barak Obama was born outside of America.

Just as no amount of evidence can change the birthers' minds, there have been irreconcilable differences between scientists and politicians about climate change. Neither has been willing to examine or able to understand the opposing mind-set.

Similar beliefs and denials have taken place and distorted facts between political parties in every governmental system.

Americans firmly believe, for instance, that the only viable political system is a democracy unless the democratically elected are not the preferred winners. (Think Hamas and Hezbollah).

Those who still insist that the bombing and occupation of Iraq was justified ignore factual evidence to the contrary. No matter how much evidence points to Israel insisting that Iraq's potential for WMDs had to be eliminated, few people accept that fact.

Even though evidence supports the conclusion that Israel has no intention of ever honestly agreeing to a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, people believe the ruse of a negotiated peace.

The problem is not the differences of opinion. The real issue is always that opinions become unchangeable mind-sets. The realities they face raise many questions.

In Egypt, who's going to write the new constitution? Will the military or the people decide what is included? Who will be responsible for fair and open elections? What other influences will play a role?

Who are potential new leaders? Those who have been part of the regime that the people want changed? Or protesters with no experience governing? Will the Muslim brotherhood get a fair chance to take part in a government by a military who have opposed their existence for 30 years?

Egypt, a newcomer to real democracy, not only has a lot to learn about a functioning republic. It has to learn about the perils of locked minds.

Currently there's a similar situation in the US state of Wisconsin. Protesters have been out in the capitol for days with their minds locked onto the belief that the governor wants to destroy the labour unions.

That mind-set has been instilled in thousands who have joined the original smaller group of protestors against a bill that the governor attempted to get passed quickly and without debate in a predominantly republican state senate.

The governor's completely opposite imprisoned mentality absolutely refuses to allow for discussion, debate or negotiation. Both sides have diametrically opposed unchangeable beliefs. Both believe they are right.

It no longer takes 30 years for one mind-set to energise large groups of protestors to rebel. With the media and social networking prepared to rapidly accommodate opposites on any issue, people's revolutions will soon become common.

Will today's peaceful revolutionaries be able to prevail even when force is used against them? How many protesters need to be killed or injured before the authorities yield to demands?

How many peaceful demonstrations need to be turned into carnages and failed revolutions before leaders and the public learn to open their minds to the opposition?

Carl Rogers, the most influential psychologist in American history, said, "The only person who is educated is the one who has learned how to learn and change."

Does that mean that Egyptians needed to empathise with Hosni Mubarak? Or that the people of Wisconsin should accept their governor's position? No.

However, protestors, demonstrators and revolutionaries may have legitimate complaints. Does that convey the ability to govern? No. A lack of knowledge that comes with experience could render things much worse.

Being elected to or inheriting an office does not guarantee proper governance. A guarantee that it's improper comes when thousands of people take to the streets. When that happens it's usually too late.

We need to understand that our beliefs do influence our ability to deal with facts that may not support our beliefs. Unless I'm wrong, we need to look more closely at the facts that don't support our beliefs.

* Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. He's a weekly Op-Ed columnist for the Gulf Daily News. Dr. Balles is also Editorial Consultant for Red House Marketing and a regular contributor to Bahrain This Month.

By Mamoon Alabbasi * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Millions of Egyptian kneel to pray Friday in Cairo's Tahrir Square, where demonstrations were billed as a "Day of Victory and Continuation." (Hussein Malla)

It is easy to see that these protestors come from diverse backgrounds, have different political views and do not necessary share the exact same list of grievances. Not if your view of the region is influenced by an unhealthy negative obsession with Islam. In such case, so called analysts put on their binary world view glasses and see only 'Islamists' or 'the rest' – not that they have an accurate definition for each of those categories. They ignorantly put Al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran in one bag, and like to think that everyone else that remains falls into what they claim is a liberal category.

With this in mind, western observers who were against the uprising in Egypt were quick to warn that this was (or will be) an 'Islamist' revolution, while those who backed it went to great lengths to stress that the Muslim Brotherhood was an insignificant part of it. They cannot see Egyptians outside this two-dimensional view. That's all that matters: not the humanity and suffering of 80 million Egyptians but how powerful will the Brothers emerge in a democratic Egypt. And if the revolution is going to be a success story then they mustn't appear as having played any part in it.

Of course religious Egyptian protestors who are not officially part of the Brotherhood would automatically be calculated as part of 'the rest', even though many of them may hold views that are more conservative. Demonstrators who complained from the former regime's restriction on religious freedoms or its foreign policy (especially with regards to the US, Israel and Palestine) are also conveniently ignored if they are not members of the Brotherhood. Following this logic you'd be forgiven for thinking that being a cyber activist and a devout Muslim are mutually exclusive.

The fact is this was a revolution of the whole of the Egyptian people, including the Brotherhood (and of course Christians too). But the Brothers did not catch up with the revolution late in the day; it was the masses that finally joined their struggle against the regime. Their activists had long been tortured or routinely detained in the regime's jails decades before the 2011 uprising. Every time there was an election, their campaigners were the first usual suspects to be rounded up.

They played a very positive part in the demonstrations and even their former critics commended their role in protecting protestors when they were attacked. They also never sought to hijack the revolution or claim it as their own. In fact they tried to stay out of the limelight to avoid US animosity towards the uprising. They insist that they do not want a 'religious state' and called for democratic reforms (although they too need to reform). They are a part of Egypt, so who stands to gain from dividing Egyptians? Why do outsiders push for hatred instead of free and fair polls?

In a truly democratic Egypt, political parties will have a place, the strength of which would be determined by the ballot box. The Brotherhood may not be the perfect party (despite improvements over the years) for everyone, but the unwarranted demonising of the group by non-Egyptians is a great disservice to the whole of Egypt. We have witnessed great solidarity between Christians and Muslims during the anti-Mubarak protests, which shows that Egyptians – if left to their own devices – can live together without serious sectarian tensions. There were rare scenes of people holding up copies of the Koran and crucifixes shoulder to shoulder. These people included ultra-conservative Muslims; men with long beards, women with niqabs – all of whom expressing sentiments of unity with their fellow Christian citizens.

This inspiring sense of compassion between Egyptians must not be lost. It is even a greater gain than the fall of Mubarak, because united Egyptians can topple any future dictator. Those who have failed to suppress the Egyptian revolution now seek to derail it or rebrand it to keep the status quo of division and mistrust among the people. But Egyptians of all walks of life need to remember their moments of unity in Tahrir Square and across Egypt: do they want this spirit to continue or will they let their ill-wishers divide (and rule) them once more?

* Mamoon Alabbasi (M.A. in applied linguistics) is a news editor and translator based in London. His op-eds, reports, poetry, and reviews have appeared in a number of media outlets.

By Yousef Munayyer * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Thirty years ago the Soviet Union was at the beginning of a long campaign in Afghanistan, the average person was lucky to have an advanced recording technology called a "VHS tape," and Mohammad Hosni Mubarak took control of Egypt, the most populous nation in the Arab Middle East. This week, the last of these beginnings came to an end when millions of Egyptian protestors succeeded in toppling one of the longest standing rulers in the 5,000-year history of Egypt.

But as with all eras, Hosni Mubarak's established norms, some national and others regional, which have now irreversibly changed. What type of government may take form in Egypt in the coming weeks and months is yet to be seen, however, it is highly unlikely that any new government can afford to repeat the mistakes of the previous regime which eliminated pluralistic political participation in the formulation of both domestic and foreign policy.

Many different global players had an investment in the outcome of the drama that finally concluded in Egypt with Mubarak's departure. So after this transformational moment, who are the winners and who are the losers?

The Winners

1. The People of Egypt – After only 18 days, the people of Egypt succeeded in removing a ruler who had governed Egypt for three decades. But the victory for the people of Egypt is far greater than the removal of one person like Mubarak or his family. The fall of Mubarak means the fall of various other players who had been involved in central roles in Mubarak's political party and have used this power to garner wealth while half of Egypt's population lived below the poverty line. The extent to which the people of Egypt remain in the winner's category depends on what happens from this day forward. Transfer of power from an octogenarian dictator to the "supreme military council" is not exactly democratic reform. The next few weeks and months will determine if the generals now in control of Egypt will be willing to genuinely cede power back to the people, and – if this process comes to fruition – if Egypt's future will be bright.

2. The Palestinian People (Especially in Gaza) – For several years, the Mubarak regime has played a direct role in the coordinated siege of Gaza. The siege has, of course, had a devastating effect on the economic status and humanitarian needs in Gaza, and has effectively led to the collective punishment of Gaza's civilian population. The siege has been a major rallying point among Arabs and Muslims and people of conscience around the world who have been appalled by the callous treatment of a largely civilian population, and it should go without saying that Egypt's role in this siege was wildly unpopular in Egypt itself. The regime regularly began demonizing elements in Gaza – creating a boogeyman – to justify the siege among its population as a national security interest. Only days before the fall of the regime, the detested Ministry of Interior, now under house arrest, blamed the horrific bombing of a church in Alexandria, which risked the onset of sectarian violence, on Palestinians from Gaza.

A democratic Egypt, or at least an Egypt which must account for popular sentiment in its foreign policy making, is highly unlikely to cooperate with the Israeli siege of Gaza. Certainly, Israeli and American pressures to maintain this policy will persist regardless of what government is formed, but this newly displayed and remarkable popular outcry will factor heavily into the state's decision calculus in a way that didn't exist before. The Palestinian people, especially those in Gaza for whom Egypt and the Rafah crossing are the only access to the outside world, may finally find relief from the ongoing struggle to secure food and fuel, and travel without threat of prolonged imprisonment or death in a smuggling tunnel.

3. Al Jazeera – The Qatari-backed satellite news network, which was already the most popular news outlet in the Arab world, took tremendous steps forward during this transformational moment. Not only did Al Jazeera's English and Arabic language networks have the best coverage of all other regional networks, they had the best coverage of the situation throughout the world. While most networks were asleep at the control room, Al Jazeera had reporters on the ground in Tahrir Square from the onset covering the event live from every angle and in both languages. This advantage caused various American news networks to rely on Al Jazeera footage and reporters, and, in a rather rare occurrence, the overall narrative on Al Jazeera was mimicked by major news networks in the United States. For all the credit given to the internet and social media, one must note that when Mubarak hit the internet kill switch, the world relied on Al Jazeera to see what was happening in Egypt. This was coupled with an amazing surge in visits to Al Jazeera's Arabic and English websites where viewers from around the world went to watch live coverage.

But Al Jazeera is also in the winner's column because the biggest individual loser, Mubarak, expressly made Al Jazeera his enemy. While most journalists were targeted by the regime's crackdown, Al Jazeera's crew came under significant pressure and their offices in Cairo were set on fire. The network's satellite signal was jammed by the regime in the very early days of the uprising and it was forced to change its frequency numerous times. And while the regime was resisting the demands of the people, both Hosni Mubarak and Omar Suleiman repeatedly blamed "outside influence" and specifically warned people not to watch "satellite channels" clearly referring to Al Jazeera. Ultimately, when news finally came that Mubarak was stepping down, most Egyptians, Arabs and many others around the world watched it live on the Al Jazeera network.

The Losers

1. The Palestinian Authority – It was only days before the January 25th revolution began that Palestinian Authority (PA) officials were making the exact same argument about Al Jazeera that the Mubarak regime was making in its last throws. Al Jazeera was airing an exposé on the "Palestine Papers," documents from behind closed-door negotiations between Israel and the PA that thoroughly embarrassed the Ramallah-based authority, and led Chief Negotiator Saeb Erakat to resign. In response, the PA told Palestinians not to listen to Al Jazeera and argued that the network and the outside forces which control them were attempting a coup against the PA.

But it is not simply the PA's being on the Mubarak side of Al Jazeera which places them in the loser column. The PA relied heavily on the Mubarak regime for several things and it entrusted Mubarak and his intelligence chief Omar Suleiman to handle any negotiations between them and their political rivals Hamas. The reason that the PA was so enthralled by Mubarak's regime is perhaps best illuminated by a Wikileak-ed State Department cable where Suleiman "explained that Egypt's three primary objectives with the Palestinians were to maintain calm in Gaza, undermine Hamas, and build popular support for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas."

Even during the final days of the Mubarak regime, the PA's security apparatus repressed demonstrations in Ramallah being held in solidarity with the Egyptian people. Shortly after the crowds were dispersed and some of their members arrested, a pro-Mubarak demonstration was permitted to take place. There is little doubt that that the PA was worried that their best friend in the region maybe going on permanent vacation. With a post-Mubarak Egypt, which is unlikely to operate as the old Egypt did, the PA will be increasingly lonely in a region which has grown skeptical of the U.S.-backed regime in Ramallah.

2. Israel – Egypt was Israel's biggest strategic military threat before a peace agreement was signed between the two in 1979. Since then, an Egypt led by Mubarak had become Israel's best friend in the region and cooperated with Israel on the siege of Gaza, but also other strategic and military endeavors. A more democratic Egypt will likely not mean the end to the 1979 Camp David peace accords. Surely, there will be plenty of American pressure on Cairo to make sure that this is the case. But the days of close Egyptian-Israeli security coordination are likely as much a part of the history books as Mubarak himself.

It is not simply the change in the Israeli-Egyptian relationship which will negatively impact Tel Aviv. The impact of the successful overthrow of Mubarak will spread throughout the region which means Arab publics throughout the region will feel empowered – a thought that makes Israeli leaders shiver. Few things have benefited Israeli security more than pacified Arab publics. Moreover, if Egypt's official posture turns away from Israel as expected, it is likely to make things increasingly more uncomfortable for another of Israel's neighbors, Jordan. The Hashemite Kingdom, which signed peace with Israel in 1994, may now be Israel's only friend in the region. With Turkey's realignment away from Israel in recent years, and now Egypt's transformation toward democracy, Jordan will find it more difficult to deflect regional and domestic criticism of security cooperation with Israel and maybe forced to adjust its position as well.

3. Saudi Arabia and other "moderates" – Like most around the world, Saudi Arabia was caught off guard by the events which took place in Tunisia leading to the overthrow of Zein Al-Abidine Ben Ali. When no one else would take the first modern Arab dictator to be deposed, Saudi Arabia offered him refuge. But the last thing Saudi Arabia wanted was to start a collection, and it was critical for the United States' oldest ally in the region that what happened in Tunisia stayed in Tunisia. Tunisia could be explained away as a rare event, but if Mubarak fell, the domino effect would be undeniable and the reverberations would head throughout the Middle East.

When the United States began to distance itself from Mubarak, the Saudis notably objected calling on the United States to handle Mubarak with care. Then, when Washington began to question their $1.3 billion in aid to Egypt, the Saudis announced that if U.S. aid to the regime was cut off, they'd be happy to step in and replace it.

In the end, of course, Mubarak stepped down and the revolution in Egypt achieved similar results to the revolution in Tunisia less than a month earlier. Saudi Arabia now has the unique reputation of being the regime which stuck by the most unpopular man in the region up to the very last minute. Mubarak was also a key member in an axis of "moderate" states, which is the typology used in Washington to describe allies like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Yemen (and previously Egypt and Tunisia), and has little to do with the actual political temperament of the states. This "moderate" axis often had to deflect criticism for unpopular policies in support of U.S. objectives. Now, this collective has lost its most strategically important member in Mubarak, who projected the narrative and interests of the "moderates" in his policy toward Israel/Palestine, the conflict which has helped define politics in the Arab world for the better part of a century.

4. The Global Sectarians – From Islamophobes here in the United States who rejected pro-democracy demonstrations in Egypt arguing that this is the beginning of a new caliphate, to radical extremists who have targeted Christian minorities in the Middle East, the global sectarians who preach a narrative of tension between faiths in the region suffered a significant blow. Images of Egypt's Copts alongside Egypt's Muslims calling for a new regime put an end to the Mubarak-sponsored myth that a strong-armed dictator was desired for the implementation of secularism. While the secular Arab nationalism that swept the region in the early post-colonial period relied on Arab identity as its backbone, what we are seeing today even transcends that commonality. The unity of protestors of different faiths in Tahrir square showed that Christians and Muslims in the region had more in common than just an Arab or Egyptian identity; they also equally yearned for freedom and were ready to pay the ultimate price for it. This is not to say that religious minorities have no concerns about the future of Egypt, but this newly demonstrated unity can lay the foundations of a state with strong respect for civil and religious rights.

In Between

The United States – The jury is still out on whether the United States is a winner or a loser after the revolution in Egypt. President Obama made an important statement after Mubarak stepped down calling the events in Egypt "historic" and saying "The people of Egypt have spoken, their voices have been heard, and Egypt will never be the same.... The United States will continue to be a friend and partner to Egypt." But despite President Obama's world-renowned oratory skills, it is not likely the people of Egypt will forget the United States' 30 years of support for the regime which repressed them, especially since tear-gas canisters labeled "Made in the USA" were just recently used against them.

The relationship between Egypt and the United States will depend on what happens from this day forward. The United States must not only be a friend and partner to Egypt, but it must also not interfere in Egypt's democracy and respect its new found independence if the new government is less aligned with U.S. and Israeli interests than the last one was. Only time will tell how the United States will respond when Egypt reaches that inevitable juncture.

* Yousef Munayyer is the Executive Director of the Jerusalem Fund and the Palestine Center.

WARNING: STRONG LANGUAGE

By Mantiq al-Tayr * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

1. The Egyptian people deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. To be more accurate, the Nobel Peace Prize is not good enough for the Egyptian people, but still it would be a great gesture and would make lots of Arab regimes even more uneasy than they are now. Fortunately for them, most likely rich white men will not want to bestow it upon that incredible people, but you can sign the petition here. I only wish the petition also called for stripping Obama of his.

2. Remember that New Years day bombing of the Coptic Church in Alexandria? 23 people were killed and the media were all to happy to report that "Mooselim extremists" had done the deed. In fact, some tiny faction of Palestinian morons known as JundAllah ("Assholes" in Arabic), is said to have done the deed, though they did deny it. The group, perhaps because they knew what really happened, or perhaps because they just are out and out assholes, said that it "praised" those who did do it. Back to that very shortly.

But hell, the Bullshit Broadcasting Network (BBC) pinned it on them, so it had to be true.

Interior Minister Habib al-Adli said Cairo had "decisive proof" that the Army of Islam carried out the attack in the northern Egyptian city.

And of course all of the Main $tream Media went along for the ride. I mean, if Interior Minister Habib al-Adli said it was true and that he had evidence, well then it had to be true. Mooselims did the killing, radical horrible Mooselims, the worst kind of Mooselims, Palestinian Mooselims.

Well, if these reports turn out to be true, al-Adli did have proof, all of the proof. How did he get it so fast? Because his subordinates planned and initiated the attack setting up the fall guys in the process. Yup, if the reports are true – and the current Egyptian government is now investigating prosecuting al-Adli for these murders – then we have an interesting story indeed. Again.

The story is that Adli's people planned the attack, got the patsies involved, killed one of them at the site of the bombing and then arranged to have the other two arrested at a meeting a few days later. Inexplicably, these latter two were let out of jail when Mubarak turned the thugs in Egypt's prisons loose in order to punish his people. They then went to the British embassy and reported what had happened. Could all be baloney, but . . .

And of course, if it turns out that the Egyptian government did orchestrate the killings, then we have yet another piece of evidence that no terrorist bombing can ever be taken at face value. None. Not one. But I'm sure most readers of this blog already know that anyway. You need evidence – and that evidence is pretty darn hard to get, especially when you have to rely on the MSM.

Oh, and Al-Adli is also being investigated for his role in killing innocent Egyptian demonstrators. Oh, and the link I am giving you for this is on the Muslim Brotherhood website for the benefit of all you "patriot" bloggers who are now acting like Egypt experts. (I am not an expert on Egypt, and claim only to know that lots of Egyptians seem like wonderful people.) Browse around the site. You expert Arabists who think you know something about Egypt, and you know who you are, you might want to try the MB's Arabic website too.

3. A while back a regular reader of this blog inquired about a website known as the "The Angry Arab News Service" asking if it were any good. I replied in the affirmative and recommended she keep visiting the site.

The Angry Arab (Dr. As'ad AbuKhalil) has been especially good the past three weeks or so with his commentary on and his links to the tremendous events in Egypt. I'm going to single out a couple of them here but I strongly recommend to anyone who wants to learn more about what's happened in Egypt to scroll through his site, especially "alternative" media bloggers so many of whom have recently anointed themselves as experts on Egypt and are filling the internet with articles and podcasts about what's been going on there. Oh, I forgot, I already mentioned them. Sorry. Back to the main idea.

First of all, despite some indications that the military leaders are hijacking the revolution, I want to point to Dr. AbuKhalil's post here where he lists 14 points to keep in mind as events unfold in Egypt. He's spot on. Give them a good read.

Oh, and I have to comment on point 14, which just might be my favorite point on this list. Dr. AbuKhalil informs us (no doubt correctly):

14) The vulgar singer, Sha'ban 'Abdul-Rahim who sang for Husni Mubarak will come out with songs against him.

As all the experts on Egypt out there on the internet know, did I mention that there sure as hell are a lot of experts on Egypt, out there? Oh, I'm digressing. Anyway, as all you experts on Egypt know, Abdul-Rahim's most famous song is "I hate Israel."

I can hear you all now, "Mantiq, that sounds like a great song? Is it on youtube so we can hear it?"

Well, yes it is and it exists in different versions. You can find one of them here. And listen carefully to the words and maybe you will understand why the Angry Arab says what he says. (The video has some great pics in it too.) My favorite part of the song is when he sings "I love Husni Mubarak because he is so smart, when he takes a step he really thinks things out." (Hey, I made it rhyme. )

I guess one could hope that Shaban was just being funny and put those words in to get past the censors.

Dr. AbuKhalil also links to this article which provides some interesting historical perspective. It is also well written. It compares the events of the past weeks with the 1919 revolt in Egypt. Read the whole thing. I provide you with two excerpts:

Ms. Ifdal Elsaket writes:

The anxious jubilation and the revolutionary vivacity that permeated the atmosphere of Egypt's cities were reminiscent of the events that unfolded during Egypt's popular uprising of 1919, when, for the first time in the history of the modern Egyptian state, thousands of ordinary Egyptians of all classes, men and women, young and old, Muslim and Christian, took to the streets to demand political change. In that year, after decades of British occupation, political discontent, and worsening economic conditions, the Egyptian nation rose – its people becoming an unwavering force to be reckoned with. . . .

Tellingly, as I write this, and in an expression of profound historical poignancy, one of Sayyid Darwish's song's "Biladi", popular with the protestors of 1919 and adopted in 1979 as the Egyptian national anthem, roars through the Square. At this moment, one can not help but think that perhaps, almost 100 years later, the aspirations of 1919 might finally be fulfilled.

I liked this post too. It's very short. So short even Shas Party members can pay attention to it. In fact, I'll quote it here in full.

"When you watch the Egyptian people, you have to say this: they are the most articulate people one knows. They never run out of words to say and they never pause for the right word. This is true for the educated and the less educated alike. Their journalists are very good with words, their politics aside. In some way that is also true of the Syrian people."

4. The all-knowing all-wise master informs us:

But here's the big question in Egypt now: Can this youth-led democracy movement take the power and energy it developed in Tahrir Square, which was all focused on one goal - getting rid of Hosni Mubarak - and turn it into a sustainable transition to democracy, with a new constitution, multiple political parties and a free presidential election in a timely fashion? Here, the movement's strength - the fact that it represented every political strain, every segment and class in Egyptian society - is also its weakness. It still has no accepted political platform or leadership.

Let me take a minute to point out the Arabic expert who wrote this that the movement's focus was not on one goal. They made this clear early on and they repeatedly stated their goals in the Arab and the international press. They also printed them and raised them on banners in Tahrir Square and elsewhere. Friedman, read this, for example.

Or try this one.

Okay, okay, you can read it in English here.

Also, for an excellent read on the upside of not having the kind of leadership the all-knowing all-wise one calls for, go here. Warning, it is written by an Egyptian who was there and the article has not been through the MSM filtering process so it can be published under David Sanger's name in the NYT: you might get a perspective that would disturb the Israeli lobby, Eric Cantor and Jane Harman.

5. I really did want to write about Mossad Jane Harman's resignation from Congress while poking great fun and an awful article about that resignation in the Jerusalem Washington New York Times Post (JEWNYTP), but I just don't have time. Hopefully in the next post.

6. I might have an interesting tidbit for regular readers of this blog if something I've been trying to arrange behind the scenes works out of the next day or so. I'll post it to the site quickly if it happens and put out a notice on twitter and facebook.

7. The Mermaid put this on her facebook page. Beautifully done. Join in with the Egyptians as they celebrate. The voice of freedom is calling you too.

* Mantiq al-Tayr is a blogger who is attempting to wake up other American citizens to the true dangers and challenges which face their country and is devoted to justice for the Palestinian people. Truth is his objective, satire is his tool. He also enjoys reading the Qur'an from time to time. See his website.