Sabbah Report » Bleeding Edge

The Legend of 9/11 – 10 Years On [video]

Anthony Lawson — Sun, 04 Sep 2011 10:15:04 +0000

By Anthony Lawson* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

This video concentrates on the two major 9/11 issues: The Unidentified Planes and The Controlled Demolitions. Nothing else. It does not mention the NORAD stand--down; the don't-fly and don't-go-to-work warnings or the Dancing Israelis or any of the other anomalies and suspicious happenings. The alleged amateur suicide pilots are not mentioned, either, for obvious reasons, and I do not know what happened to the allegedly hijacked planes or their alleged passengers and crews.

It is my contention that the 9/11 Truth Movement has got to concentrate on the most blatant and provable lies in the official story, and stop trying to be an amateur Police Precinct or a citizen's District Attorney's Office. The Movement must bring pressure to bear in the authorities for a new enquiry, so that the police, the FBI, the NTSB and all of the other law enforcement and investigative agencies can do what should have been done 10 years ago: Find out who was responsible for the crime of the attacks on 9/11 and bring them to justice.

Video link: http://youtu.be/wF-Rp4W_ABE

While I was thinking about a video for the 10th anniversary of 9/11, an English artist named David Borrington got in touch, and asked if I would write and record some voice commentaries to be included in a set of prints that he was making for the same occasion. When I saw his strangely haunting artwork, I decided to incorporate David's images into my video. So, my sincere thanks go to David Borrington, whose website is www.davidborrington.com

I would also like to recommend that anyone who is interested in the research done on the Murray Street engine take a look at Christopher King's excellent web page.

Music: Adagietto - 4th Movement from Gustav Mahler's Symphony No.5

* Anthony Lawson (known professionally as Tony Lawson) is a retired international-prize-winning commercials director, cameraman, ad agency creative director and voice over. He used to be known for shooting humorous commercials, but doesn’t find much to laugh about, with the way the world is going, these days.

Fateh Leadership Betrays the Memory of Abu Ammar and Abu Jihad

SR Editor — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 12:20:40 +0000

Bring Their Murderers to Justice

Canada Palestine Association issued the following statement and is asking other organizations and individuals to endorse it.

AFP Photo/Mohammed Abed

While the people all over the Arab world are rising up against their U.S.-Israeli puppet regimes, the current Fateh leadership represented by the so-called Palestinian Authority (PA) is sending messages of support to these dictatorial regimes. The PA is also trying to prevent and suppress the Palestinian popular expression with the Tunisian and Egyptian uprising against these brutal dictatorships.

It is clear that this Palestinian leadership is serving US and Israeli interests and working against not only the Egyptian and Arab peoples' aspirations but also against the liberation of the Palestinian people. Even the former Israeli Knesset member, Uri Avnery, figured it out when he stated: "The turmoil in Egypt was caused by economic factors: the rising cost of living, the poverty, the unemployment, the hopelessness of the educated young. But let there be no mistake: the underlying causes are far more profound. They can be summed up in one word: Palestine." http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1296857067/.

Nonetheless, as recently exposed by the Palestine Papers, the present Fateh leadership is choosing to be on the side of the U.S. Empire and its allies, especially Israel, who are directly responsible for the war crimes against the Palestinian people. The PA is using the Egyptian regime's tactics to suppress free speech; they are using "Dayton's babies" (an elite PA security unit), that are financed by the U.S. and Canadian governments and trained by their intelligence services, in a desperate attempt to keep the Palestinian people chained.

This leadership is also betraying all the Palestinian martyrs especially Yasser Arafat (Abu Ammar) and Khalil Al-Wazir (Abu Jihad).

1. Yasser Arafat: Over six years have passed since Arafat's death, and the Fateh leadership has not pursued any serious attempt to expose the murder of Arafat. It has not asked the UN to investigate and expose his murderers, even though there have been signs from the beginning as to possible U.S.-Israeli complicity in his murder (see the article in COUNTERPUNCH " The Revelations of Uri Dan" "Dan claimed Sharon got approval from George Bush by phone early in 2004 to proceed with his plan after he told the US president he was no longer committed to "not" liquidating the Palestinian leader".) There is a lot of evidence to support this view, including statements from his personal physician Ashraf al-Kurdi, Arafat's former Cabinet secretary, Ahmad Abdel-Rahman, the former Fateh chairperson Farouq Qaddoumi (Abu Lutoff) and Bassam Abu Sharif, former senior advisor to Yasser Arafat. We tell Mahmoud Abbas and his Fateh leadership that silence on Arafat's murder is complicity.

2. Khalil Al-Wazir: Here is a chance for the Fateh leadership to demand justice for Abu Jihad and bring the former president of Tunisia, Zine El Abidin Ben Ali, one of the conspirators in his murder, to justice. But what does Mr. Abbas and his puppet regime do? He phones both Ben Ali and Mubarak to show solidarity with them. (For details of Ben Ali and his regime's involvement in the murder of Abu Jihad, please see our letter sent to the Tunisian Ambassador in Ottawa, or David Yallop's book "To the Ends of the Earth" pages 224-226.)

On June 30, 2007 in our statement "What is Next for the Palestinian Secular Movement?" (DOC file), we warned of the dangers of the Abbas leadership regarding the Palestinian struggle and we called for his resignation.

We now call on:

1. All the Palestinian people, and particularly Fateh members, cadres and leaders, to disassociate themselves from Abbas' practices and policies and to topple him, and to declare loud and clear that Abbas does NOT represent the Palestinian people nor their cause.

2. The UN to immediately appoint an objective tribunal to investigate the murder of Yasser Arafat headed by Richard Falk, U.N. Special Rapporteur on Palestinian Human Rights.

3. The new Tunisian government to investigate the complicity of Ben Ali and his police and intelligence forces in the crime of murdering Abu Jihad, in addition to the many crimes they committed against the Tunisian people.

4. All progressive forces to support the Tunisian, Egyptian, Palestinian, Yemeni and all other Arab peoples in their struggles for freedom, democracy and independence.
We demand justice for Abu Ammar and Abu Jihad and all the Palestinian and Arab Martyrs.

Please send your endorsement to hkawas@msn.com and also sign up on our Facebook page to show your support for the demands in the statement http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_198565686820818.

Letter From A Soldier’s Parent To Israel

SR Editor — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 16:56:56 +0000

By Rob Lonaker | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Dear Israel,

My son Jeff, a U.S. Army soldier, is sworn to defend Israel against all its enemies. At least that's how his commanding officers and the guys in his squad figure it, because America and Israel have exactly the same interests. Our countries are like one. Perfect allies!

Plus, like his mother and me, his whole platoon is Christian and proud of it. He has his Bible study every day, so he knows how important Israel and the Jewish people are to God. His platoon wants to fulfill God's plan, so they fight hard for you, Israel. They all love you. And to prove it, they're dying for you.

Lately something's been bothering Jeff, though. It seems a lot of Americans have found convincing evidence of explosives used to bring down the towers on 9/11. And it's direct evidence, as the lawyers say: video, eyewitness, and chemical evidence.

Problem is, no one in the media or government will look at the evidence, even though most of it has come to light only since 2009. That's weird, because 9/11 was a pretty important event. Jeff is constantly reminded by his captain that 9/11 is the main reason his squad is in Afghanistan, fighting and dying for you, Israel.

Here's the strange part: Not one prominent Jewish person is asking for an investigation of this evidence.

We all know how much influence the Jews and Israel have over our politicians and the media. Don't get me wrong – I mean, it's great! The Israel Lobby makes sure every congressman and senator is being sensitive to even the smallest issue that affects Israel. You guys do a good job pressuring every last member of Congress to vote to fund each holocaust memorial service – and it seems likes there's another one, somewhere, every couple weeks!

Best of all, you always make sure no one criticizes Israel. We all know that's hate speech by definition! And your mechanisms for punishing politicians who slip up, by defunding their campaigns and trashing them in the press, or throwing them in jail like Jim Traficant, is nothing short of genius. Your organizational skills are amazing.

So Jeff can't understand why Jewish leaders don't want anyone to investigate the explosives found in the dust around Manhattan on 9/11.

Why are you silent, Israel?

Shouldn't great Jewish men, like 9/11 Commission Director Philip Zelikow, former Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff, and NIST 9/11 Investigation Leader John Gross, want to look at this evidence? Why aren't they clamoring to find the truth? These guys were in positions of trust, so we Americans assumed they would never omit important evidence, much less refuse to talk about it now that they're out of office.

Shouldn't our Jewish neoconservative leaders be excited to investigate new and important evidence of explosives? After all, they helped us launch America's righteous wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, and they now urge us to plunge deeper toward national bankruptcy and troop suicide by invading Iran with nukes. Where are men like Eliot Cohen, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, Abraham Shulsky, Elliott Abrams, David Schenker, Michael Ledeen, and Michael Rubin, who helped bake Iraqi WMD intelligence, when you need them? I just don't get it.

And what about the media? Come on, most mainstream media sources are heavily Jewish owned or influenced. Can't they put a little pressure on politicians and the Justice Department to get an investigation going?

We all know that al-Qaeda did 9/11, because the media, president, and congress say so. I know, no one's proved it yet, and the story is completely implausible, but – well, that's beside the point. Heck, the media told us within ten minutes of the second plane hit that Osama bin Laden did it. That just proves how smart they are: the story never needed changing, even after the 9/11 Commission "investigated" it!

So why won't Western media and governments now look into the explosives issue? I'm sure they'll find that somehow, al-Qaeda helped destroy the twin towers using the explosive agent nanothermite, which scientists later discovered in the tower dust. And someone will surely explain how al-Qaeda got access to this high-grade explosive, produced only in a few countries' classified military programs.

A few of Jeff's buddies in Afghanistan tell him there's only one logical explanation for why all the mainstream media and politicians won't look at the new explosives evidence:

You did 9/11.

Jeff thinks that no other explanation fits all the facts. But the reality of this crushes him and makes him want to despair.

But he always gets a grip on himself. He fights back tears and tries to put it out of his mind. He will stay brave.

If I may be so bold, Israel, Jeff and I would like to ask, why?

Forgive me for saying so, but I really don't think you needed to go that far. Jeff would still have fought and died for you, as I'm sure President Bush would have ordered him to, even without 9/11. I'll bet the fake WMD evidence the neocons ginned up would have been enough to garner public support for the wars you wanted. I guess what I'm saying is, our soldiers could have been mobilized into your service, Israel, with just a little false flag prevarication. You didn't need to go all the way and kill 3,000 of us. Jeff even has a friend whose mom died in the towers. Again pardon me for being brash enough to say this: that wasn't cool.

But hey, I'm sorry. Jeff and I will get over it. I talked it over with his mother, and I think maybe one day, she'll get past it, too. She's pretty emotional, though, so it may take a while.

Jeff's whole squad still supports you, Israel! They're Christians, after all, and they must remain faithful to God's Anointed People. If you had to kill some of us Americans to show us the way, then I suppose that God's ways, which are your ways, are perhaps just beyond our lowly human understanding.

Who knows? Maybe losing 3,000 innocent citizens was a small price for us to pay in your bigger scheme of things.

May God give Jeff the faith to keep fighting for you, Israel, and to be willing to lose life and limb for you, even though he may not comprehend everything. Like God smote Job to test his faith, I think that's what Israel must be doing to America. And like Abraham, I'm willing to sacrifice my son if you say it's God's will.

Jeff will go forward for you, no matter the cost you impose. Isn't that what blind faith is all about?

Sincerely,

Rob Lonaker

Source: Veterans Today

Egypt’s Revolution: Obama Backing Regime Change?

Stephen Lendman — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 17:43:47 +0000

Illustration by Carlos Latuff

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

In July 2003, a USAF Institute for National Security Studies report titled, "Egypt as a Failing State: Implications for US National Security" suggested "Mubarak's traditionally autocratic and oppressive short-term fixes" weren't working. As a result, "the possibility of unrest is real; with the correct confluence of domestic, regional, and international events, Egypt can quickly be added to the list of failed states....This paper (thus) contends that (the appearance of) democracy is a security imperative for the post-9/11 world."

In its July/August 2010 Failed States Index 2010, Foreign Policy (FP) ranked nations under five categories: critical, in danger, borderline, stable and most stable. Ranked 49th among 177 countries evaluated, FP called Egypt a failed state "in danger." It scored lowest in three "delegitimization" categories because of:

endemic corruption, including ruling elite profiteering;
human rights violations; and
an accumulation of "grievances," including poverty and unemployment among others.

Not least of its woes is an aging, ill, despotic ruler. Washington perhaps wants the appearance of a kinder, gentler replacement, the pretense of change continuing old policies. If so, it won't be the first time as a previous article explained.

Changed Washington Rhetoric

On January 30, Reuters said "Obama voiced support for an 'orderly transition' in Egypt that is responsive to the aspirations of Egyptians in phone calls with foreign leaders, the White House said on Sunday."

His rhetoric mentioned opposing violence, showing restraint, supporting universal rights, peaceful assembly and association, and free speech, what, in fact, Washington disdains globally, including at home.

Also on January 30, New York Times writer Mark Landler headlined, "Clinton Calls for 'Orderly Transition' in Egypt," saying:

She "called (for) a more politically open Egypt, stopping short of telling (Mubarak) to step down but clearly laying the groundwork for his departure." In fact, she suggested Washington wants him out. He'll get time to go, and aid will continue, despite January 28 White House comments saying it was under review.

In its January 28 editorial headlined "Washington and Mr. Mubarak," The Times suggested support for regime change, calling him "arrogan(t) and tone-deaf, (meeting) spiraling protests with spiraling levels of force and repression, (as well as showing) more....weakness than strength (by) shut(ting) down Internet access and cellphone service."

The Times has a longstanding history of supporting wealth, power, and imperial interests. It's also Washington's lead voice, so excoriating Mubarak suggests official administration policy, meaning his time has passed - gracefully if cooperative, violently if not, but one way or other he's gone.

On January 29, Haaretz News Agencies headlined "Sacking Egyptian ministers not enough, US State Department says," quoting spokesman PJ Crowley saying:

"The Egyptian government can't reshuffle the deck and then stand pat. President Mubarak's words pledging reform must be followed by action," stopping short of endorsing his departure but signaling that resolution if he hasn't left in due course.

Jimmy Carter teaches Sunday School at Marantha Baptist Church, Plains, GA. On January 30, he told parishioners and guests, Mubarak "will have to leave. This is the most profound situation in the Middle East since I left office," suggesting, of course, Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution ousting Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, replacing him with an Islamic republic under Ayatollah Ruhollah Knomeini.

On January 31, Al Jazeera headlined, "Mubarak swears in new government," saying:

"Three former senior officers are included in the line-up, suggesting a strong security presence in the new government."

Appointments included Mahmoud Wagdi as new interior minister. A retired police general, he previously headed Cairo's criminal investigations department and state prisons. A new deputy prime minister, finance minister and trade minister were also named.

Retaining their posts were Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Fheit and Defense Minister General Mohamed Hussein Tantawi.

Protesters were unimpressed, AFP reporting they'll:

"accept no change other than Mubarak's departure. We want a complete change of government (under) a civilian authority," they demanded.

Egyptian Security Forces Back on Streets

Police and Central Security Forces (CSF) are again deployed after letting army troops alone patrol streets. Evidence, in fact, suggested they were involved in looting, robberies, jailbreaks, violence, and break-ins into upscale neighborhoods to create instability, trying to blame protesters and undermine Mubarak's regime. Reportedly, he instructed military troops to shoot to kill if necessary. So far, they've shown restraint.

On January 31, Al Jazeera headlined, "Egypt protesters increase pressure," saying:

Protesters called for massive Tuesday demonstrations. "The so-called April 6 Movement said it plans to have more than a million people" in Cairo streets "as anti-goverment sentiment reaches a fever pitch."

Thousands were back out Monday. "Protesters say they'll stay (there) as long as Mubarak (remains) in power." They're unimpressed with new appointments and pledges, calling them "too little, too late."

On January 31, a Lebanon Daily Star editorial titled, "Egypt's battle requires focus" said:

"....the rest of the world should stay out of the drama that is unfolding in the land of the Nile, and avoid provoking the situation. Decades of double standards based on support for anti-democratic regimes, under the pretext of security, cannot be erased with breathless exclamations of support for 'the people.' "

Czech writer Milan Kudera once said "The struggle of people against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting."

Global despots are puppets taking orders from Washington, suppressing their people as directed. For generations, America waged war on democracy and truth at home and abroad. After WW II, it was global, today enforced with high-tech military power able to strike targets anywhere with overwhelming force in short order, or deploy quickly on homeland streets to preserve order or crush dissent.

Rhetoric aside, morality, good intentions, high-mindedness, and freedom aren't part of America's agenda - just money power, military strength and global dominance. It's been that way for decades.

HL Mencken on America's Sham Democracy

In 1926, acerbic political critic HL Mencken's "Notes on Democracy" called it farcical, excoriating "mobmen" who extol it while supporting tyrants, offering thoughts like:

"What is worth knowing he doesn't know and doesn't want to know; what he knows is not true. The cardinal articles of his credo are the intentions of mountebanks; his heros are mainly scoundrels."

"The average American doesn't want to be free. He simply wants to be safe."

"I have alluded somewhat vaguely to the merits of democracy. One of them is quite obvious: it is, perhaps, the most charming form of government ever devised by man. The reason is not far to seek. It is based upon propositions that are palpably not true - and what is not true, as everyone knows, is always immensely more fascinating and satisfying to the vast majority of men than what is true. Truth has a harshness that alarms them...."

Irreverent, refreshingly politically incorrect, and as relevant now as then, he eviscerated a sacred cow, with comments like "Shall we make the world safe for democracy?" To the contrary, "The world should be made safe from democracy!" - meaning the bogus kind America espouses.

He accused politicians of "shov(ing)" "plain people" into war, and will "shove (them) into the next one."

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face (to) rule it."

Mencken believed in liberty. Today he'd excoriate Washington for denying it to so many. Also its hypocrisy, with comments like "It is the theory of all modern civilized (US-type) governments that they protect and foster the liberty of the citizen; it is the practice of all of them to limit its exercise, and sometimes very narrowly."

He also called (US-style) governance "organized exploitation," preaching high-mindedness while practicing state terrorism, brutishness, intolerance, and authoritarian control, globally today like Mencken couldn't have imagined.

Prospects Ahead for Egypt

Below are variations on Stratfor founder George Friedman's four possible outcomes:

(2) ElBaradei or someone like him becomes president, offering a facade of democracy.

(3) The Muslim Brotherhood is empowered with a moderate Islamist agenda, posing no threat to dominant Western interests, cooperating instead to keep power.

(4) Egypt becomes chaotic. Elections produce gridlock. No viable candidate emerges. Instability continues.

Odds are Mubarak will leave, and stability will return under a new regime, very much subservient to Washington like all other global despots wanting to go along to get along, or put another way - survive long enough to enjoy power and related privileges.

A Final Comment

TE Lawrence (of Arabia) once promised Arabs independence and democracy for their support in WW I. They're still waiting.

* 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.

Can the Palestinian Authority survive?

Jonathan Cook — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 07:15:07 +0000

By Jonathan Cook * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Cartoon by Steve Bell

With the 18-year-long Middle East peace process finally pronounced dead, is the Palestinian Authority (PA) finished too?

That is the question being asked by Palestinians in the wake of a week of damaging revelations that Palestinian negotiators secretly made major concessions to Israel in talks on Jerusalem, refugees and borders.

The PA - the Palestinians' government-in-the-making, led by Mahmoud Abbas - was already in crisis before the disclosure of official Palestinian documents by Al-Jazeera television last week.

Now, said George Giacaman, the head of the Ramallah-based research centre Muwatin, which advocates greater Palestinian democracy, the PA's "back is to the wall".

The question of the PA's survival, and the future direction of Palestinian politics, has gained added urgency as the wider Middle East is rocked by unrest, from Tunisia to Yemen.

Mahdi Abdul Hadi, the director of the Jerusalem think-tank Passia, said the Palestinians were "at a crossroads". Although the streets had remained largely quiet until now, he said it was only a matter of time before Palestinians started to make clear their revulsion at their leadership.

"It is now much clearer to Palestinians that they are living in a prison and that the PA leaders are there only to negotiate the terms of our imprisonment," he said.

He, like many other Palestinian analysts, declared the negotiations for a two-state solution over.

That sentiment appears to be shared by a majority of Palestinians. A survey in December, before the leak of 1,600 official documents, by the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research showed that 71 per cent of Palestinians believed they would not have a state within five years. The percentage is likely to have risen sharply.

In a sign of the mounting panic in Ramallah, Palestinian leaders frantically launched a rearguard action last week. Initially, they claimed the documents were fabricated, and suggested that Al-Jazeera was siding with Mr Abbas's political rivals, the Islamic party Hamas, to bring down the PA.

But several officials have confirmed the papers' authenticity, and the PA has redirected its main attention to discovering who was behind the leak.

Mr Abdul Hadi said Palestinians would increasingly draw the conclusion that their intended future was living in "one binational state under an apartheid regime" administered by Israel.

"At the moment Abbas has his followers out on the streets but the Palestinian people are awakening to the reality of their situation," he said.

Samir Awad, a politics professor at Birzeit University, near Ramallah, agreed that Israel was imposing a de facto one-state solution. "The fight for national independence is over and, if it is to survive, the PA must quickly reinvent its role. Palestinians are now in for the long haul: a struggle for their civil and political rights in a single state," he said.

Asad Ghanem, a politics professor at Haifa University in Israel and an expert on Palestinian politics, warned, however, that, as the PA faltered, Israel and the US would intensify their efforts to strengthen the authority's security forces and its repressive role.

With politics stifled inside the occupied territories, said Mr Ghanem, it was crucial that outside Palestinian leaders step in to redefine the Palestinian national movement, including Palestinians such as himself who live inside Israel and groups in the diaspora.

Mr Giacaman said the PA had long ago outlived its official purpose.

It was created by the Oslo accords as a temporary administration in the transition to Palestinian statehood, proposed as a five-year period during which Israel was supposed to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza in stages.

Since the Camp David negotiations ended in deadlock in 2000, the PA has clung to power, with limited control over less than 40 per cent of the West Bank as Israel has continued to build settlements in the area under its rule.

Mr Abbas has threatened on several occasions to dissolve the PA, most recently in December, when he warned: "I cannot accept to remain the president of an authority that doesn't exist."

But Mr Giacaman said such threats were hollow, designed to put pressure on Israel to return to negotiations out of fear that it would otherwise have to take on the heavy financial burden of direct military reoccupation.

The PA, however, was in much deeper trouble after the leaking of the documents, Mr Giacaman said. "Without a peace process, it needs to justify its continuing existence."

The most likely immediate focus, he said, was intensifying international action through the United Nations, by pushing for a resolution at the Security Council against the settlements.

He also thought the PA would consider changing its position and actively championing the Goldstone Report, the findings of a UN commission that suggest Israel committed war crimes during its attack on Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009.

One of the leaked papers revealed that Mr Abbas had agreed under US pressure to shelve the report rather than take it to the UN General Assembly.

"The problem for the PA is that it needs to generate diplomatic crises to get the international community to intervene. But this will put it in confrontation with Israel and the United States. Israel can always threaten to cut the 60 million dollars in taxes it transfers every month to the PA," Mr Giacaman said.

The PA's threat to unilaterally declare statehood and then seek recognition at the UN, he added, would not change the reality on the ground. "Even if most countries recognize the state, it will still be a state under occupation," Mr Giacaman said.

In the meantime, the diplomatic vacuum was likely to be filled by Israel. It could promote a plan similar to the one being advanced by Avigdor Lieberman, the far-right foreign minister, to recognize a Palestinian state in temporary borders. Or it could continue its separation policies, withdrawing from more of the West Bank and encouraging the Palestinians to take over what was left behind.

Mr Awad said the collapse of the PA held out many dangers for the Palestinians. One was the possibility of a convulsive civil war between the Fatah party of Mr Abbas and Hamas. Another, he said, was the "Aghanistanization" of the occupied territories, as tribal warlords took limited control of the territorial enclaves Israel was not interested in.

* Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair".

Tunisia and Egypt: Why Now?

Lawrence Davidson — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:57:03 +0000

Illustration by Carlos Latuff

By Lawrence Davidson * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Part I

If the recent events in Tunisia and Egypt tell us anything it is that predicting the beginning of mass unrest is very difficult. Indeed, it is probably easier to predict the stock market. What one can do, however, is describe conditions that are likely to create a context conducive to such unrest. What might those be?

1. First and foremost are poor economic conditions that are believed unnecessary by a suffering population. In our day and age this condition is easy to meet. There are many areas of the world where economies are stagnant, held hostage by international organizations like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, unable to feed usually growing populations, and most importantly, unable to employ a growing percentage of their adult population, including highly educated middle class individuals. And, in age of worldwide instant communication, no one really believes that such conditions are the way things have to be. Muhammad Bouazizi, the young man who, through an act of self-immolation, sparked the revolt that brought down Tunisia's dictator, was responding to years of economic frustration.

2. Police and/or military repression is the second condition that increases the probability, at least in the long run, of resistance and revolt. In a country where unemployment is high, the army and the police become primary employers. But, those so employed are separated out from the rest of the population as an arm of a government that is unpopular. They often act with impunity. That is they are above the law and not its servants. If their salaries are sub-standard or they are not well supervised the police may well turn criminal. And their usual crime is extortion. Muhammad Bouazizi committed suicide after police took away his only source of living. They confiscated his street stall in part because he could not afford to pay off those in authority.

3. Thus, rampant corruption is a third ingredient often found in societies that are vulnerable to popular revolution. When questioned about employment possibilities, a young man from Bouazizi's town, Sidi Bouzid, responded, "Why don't I have a job? Because I would have to pay people connected to the president's family to receive one. They take everything from us, and give us nothing."

Egypt too reflects this mix, though in different ways than does Tunisia. In Egypt unemployment is very high, particularly among the young and college graduates. Having a highly educated labor force that is chronically unemployed or under employed is always a dangerous mix. Repression is also high in what amounts to a police state with rigged elections and torture chambers in the basements of local jails. Corruption is pervasive in Egypt. Everyone knows that those close to the dictator control the economy. You want something done, you have to cut them in.

Part II

While the three conditions listed above might be necessary to the eventual outbreak of mass unrest, at least in the non-Western world, they are not sufficient. Zine Ben Ali was Tunisia's dictator for 23 years. Hosni Mubarak has "led" Egypt for 30 years. Conditions in both countries have been ripe for a popular uprising for much of that time. So what is the missing ingredient? It is probably not one thing, but rather a chain of things. Here is the surmise put forth by my wife, the anthropologist Janet Amighi:

B. Then something particularly outrageous (Bouaziz's public suicide) or inspiring (successful revolt in Tunisia) occurs.

C. This event is enough to overcome the fear and passivity of a small number of people who publically protest.

D. For whatever reason they are not immediately suppressed and this encourages others to take the chance of coming into the streets.

E. At this point the authorities have a choice. You either come down very hard on the protestors, which usually includes shooting many of them down, or you positively respond to their demands. Or sometimes the authorities are so stunned and uncertain they just do nothing. In 1989 in China the government choose to shoot the people in Tianamen Square. In Tunisia and also in Iran of the Shah, and now in Egypt too, the government hesitated or, as seems likely in the case of Tunisia, the army refused to shoot down the citizenry.

F. Whatever the reason, hesitation on the part of the government that goes on long enough changes the default norms. Passivity and fear ebb and all the discontent and hatred that has built up over the decades comes pouring out. At that point the days of most dictatorial regimes are numbered.

Part III

For a very long time now the U.S. has put its money on the dictators. Washington has bought both them and their armies so as to have the leverage to economically exploit their countries and dictate their foreign policies. We officially call this arrangement "stability." It works most of the time because most people are in fact passive and fearful. Yet, at the same time the U.S. government has presented itself as the champion of democracy. This is mostly for domestic American consumption, but it does make it difficult for Washington to turn around and advocate the slaughter of protestors in those rare moments when such a choice presents itself.

However, that does not mean there are not those among us who have not and would not again do just that or worse. Henry Kissinger and his Chilean friend Augusto Pinochet come to mind.. More recently there are the neo-conservatives. As far as I am concerned, Jimmy Carter did the right thing by advising the Shah of Iran not to slaughter those he had so long oppressed. And, just so, Barack Obama has (at least so far) done the right thing by advising Hosni Mubarak and his generals not to slaughter the people of Egypt. However, there is little doubt that Mubarak would have gotten a very different message from George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and the entire gang that ran the U.S.A. only a few years ago.

Part IV

The future outcomes of these popular revolts are also difficult to predict. Unless the protesting elements have strong organization and a clear notion of how they want their future to look, these things can peter out as quickly as they erupt. Then the names of the dictators may change, but the repressive game stays approximately the same. That is also something Washington calls "stability"or, in the present case of Egypt, an "orderly transition." Then again, once there is turmoil all manner of possible outcomes are possible. In Tunisia the dictator is gone and, right now, the country is calm as a new government is formed. In Egypt things are much more uncertain. It seems to me that the U.S. is presently backing Omar Suleiman, Mubarak's newly named vice president. Suleiman was the head of the Egyptian Intelligence Services and is identified with policies of cooperation with Israel, particular when it comes to Gaza. He can be relied upon to be Washington's man in Cairo. Yet the likelihood of the Egyptian people swapping Mubarak for Suleiman is highly unlikely. There is also the fact that the Muslim Brothers, who have kept a low profile so far, can put half a million additional protesting Egyptians in the streets within hours with little regard to the fact that this would certainly upset Secretary of State Clinton. They have expressed their willingness to cooperate with Mohammed El Baradei, someone much more acceptable to the general population than Suleiman.

So you see, once the genie is out of the bottle so to speak, unless you, the government and its foreign supporters, are willing to kill a lot of people, you really can't control the outcome. As in Tunisia, the Egyptian army has so far decided not to murder its own people. Therefore, we don't really know how this is all going to play out in the land of the Nile.

* Lawrence Davidson is professor of history at West Chester University. He is the author of numerous books, including Islamic Fundamentalism and America's Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood.

US ammunition tells its own story in Egypt

SR Editor — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:17:55 +0000

Illustration by Carlos Latuff

By Yvonne Ridley * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

As people across Egypt continued resisting and rising against the brutal dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak it is quite clear they will not stop until he goes.

Quite clear to everyone, that is, apart from the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who is so out of touch with what is happening on the ground you have to wonder who on earth is advising her.

She appears to have no idea of the burning resentment and hatred held towards America among the ordinary men and women of Egypt. More than 100 have paid the blood price, so far, for standing up to the US-backed tyrant Mubarak and two thousand others are injured.

It has been lost on no one that the empty shell casings from live ammunition and gas cannisters, which litter Tahrir Square and other streets across Egypt, were provided by the United States of America.

The "Made in the USA" empty shell casings tell their own story not just of the innocents they have killed, but of their origins and of America's deadly legacy of unwelcome foreign interference in the region.

The Egyptian people have been fed propaganda for 30 years, their evening news on state TV is sanitized and censored and many have been afraid to speak out freely under the US-backed dictatorship of Mubarak.

But do not for one minute think the Egyptian people are stupid – sadly the US has once again completely misread and underestimated an entire population.

These demonstrations are as much a protest against US meddling in their affairs as they are against the Mubarak regime.

Despite all of this Clinton showed not one ounce of compassion or humility when she made her latest blundering speech.

With the sensitivity of a bull in a china shop, she called for an orderly transition but only after heaping praise on the Mubarak government which has "made and kept peace with Israel, avoiding violence, turmoil and death in the region".

She told ABC News:"Democracy, human rights and economic reform are in the best interests of the Egyptian people." These are the same people her own government ignored as they continued to fund and back Mubarak with billions of US taxpayers' dollars over the decades.

The BBC's North America editor Mark Mardell says Clinton's comments are a sign that the Obama administration is edging towards accepting, if not openly endorsing, an end to Mubarak's rule. The truth is, Mark, the Egyptian people do not want any more US interference – they do not want any more American weapons being used against them. America has no interest in the people of Egypt. Its only concern is for the man-made-pariah state next door – Israel.

Clinton has been so out of step since this whole turmoil began to erupt. Both she and Obama remained completely silent for four whole weeks as scores of Tunisians died in that uprising and it was only when their man, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali took flight that they condemned his brutality.

When Egypt threatened to kick off, Clinton said assuredly that the country was "stable". That was a week ago and as she is beginning to learn, a week is a long time in politics. She says she wants democracy – but what sort of democracy Hillary? The sort that sees another tyrant take power? Or are you really going to let the people decide?

And by the way, the people are beginning to rise and resist right across the Maghreb, throughout the Middle East and Asia. US foreign policy has turned America into the most hated country in the world and if Washington really told Americans the truth, I know the millions upon millions of decent US citizens would be horrified by what is being done in their name.

But the truth is the American people are kept well away from the truth and are among the least informed people in the world today.

Few Americans have any idea that this and the previous Bush administrations do not want democracy in the region. In fact, they have collectively punished the people of Gaza for exercising their democratic right by voting for a Hamas-dominated government.

This has not been lost on the Egyptian people Hillary who, by the way, have a great love for Palestine, a place in their heart, for Gaza, and an even deeper hatred and mistrust for the brutal Zionist state, which really does threaten peace and stability in the region.

As I write this F16 fighter jets and attack helicopters, made in America, are flying overhead in Cairo to try to intimidate the Egyptian people. Too late – there isn't an army in the world that can beat this peoples' army. Their fear has gone.

Your ill-informed advisers won't tell you this, Hillary, but I hate to see an empowered female make such a prat of herself, so here's a piece of advice. The time has come when you really must step back and take a vow of silence. Every time you open your mouth you are looking and sounding even more stupid than the female presenter on Egyptian state TV who assures us all is at peace with the world and the streets of Egypt are empty and calm.

* Yvonne Ridley is one of the founders of Viva Palestina and European President of the international Muslim Women's Union

Revolutionary Change in Egypt: Internal or Made in USA?

Stephen Lendman — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:58:24 +0000

Illustration by Carlos Latuff

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

US imperial policy includes regime change, affecting foes as well as no longer useful friends. Past targets included former Philippines leader Ferdinand Marcos, Iran's Shah (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi), and Iraq's Saddam Hussein, among others. According to some reports, Mubarak is next - aging, damaged and expendable.

George Friedman runs Stratfor, a private global intelligence service. On January 29, he issued a special Egypt report, saying:

On January 29, "Egypt's internal security forces (including Central Security Forces anti-riot paramilitaries) were glaringly absent" after confronting protesters forcefully for several days. Army personnel replaced them. Demonstrators welcomed them.

"There is more (going on) than meets the eye." While media reports focus on reform, democracy and human rights, "revolutions, including this one, are made up of many more actors than (Facebook and Twitter) liberal voices...." Some are, in fact, suspect, using social network sites for other than purported reasons.

Like Iran's 1979 revolution, "the ideology and composition of protesters can wind up having very little to do with the" behind the scenes political forces gaining power. Egypt's military may be preparing to seize it. Former air force chief/civil aviation minister Ahmed Shafiq is new prime minister, tasked with forming a new government, and intelligence head Omar Suleiman is Egypt's first ever vice president under Mubarak, effectively second in command.

Moreover, Defense Minister Field Marshall Mohammed Hussein Tantawi "returned to Cairo after a week of intense discussions with senior US officials." He heads the Republican Guard, responsible for defending major government and strategic institutions, the symbols of entrenched power. Also back is Lt. General Sami Annan. Both men with others "are likely managing the political process behind the scenes."

As a result, expect more political changes, military commanders apparently willing to give Mubarak time to leave gracefully, but not much as unrest won't subside until he's gone.

Egypt's military is key as "guarantor of regime stability." It's never "relinquished its rights to the state" no matter who's president, made easier with popular support, unlike the hated police. But it's not a monolithic force, nor can it shake its history of mid-level commanders like Gamal Abdel Nasser seizing power. In 1981, Islamists and junior officers assassinated Anwar Sadat, elevating Mubarak to the presidency.

"The history of the modern Egyptian republic haunts Egypt's generals today. Though long suppressed, an Islamist strand exists amongst the junior ranks of Egypt's modern military." It could include "a cabal of colonels," seeing a chance to seize power to address longstanding grievances, especially regarding US and Israeli policies, or perhaps promise change but maintain continuity.

So far, no coup d'etat signs have emerged. While Egypt's military remains disciplined under a chain of command, "those trying to manage the crisis from the top cannot forget" their country's history of successful mid-level commander coups. Given Egypt's growing instability, another one is possible.

Washington and Israel are maneuvering for control. Egypt's fate, believes Friedman, "lies in the ability of the military to not only manage the streets and the politicians, but also itself."

He also said plainclothes Egyptian security forces are destroying public property, media reports blaming it on protesters. It also bears repeating - an overt police presence is absent, and military forces aren't stopping demonstrations or enforcing curfews, appearing to back (or at least not oppose) dissident groups instead.

Omar Suleiman's Role

On January 29, New Yorker writer Jane Mayer headlined, "Who is Omar Suleiman? saying:

Well-known in Washington, he's poised to become president after Mubarak. As intelligence chief, he was CIA's "point man in Egypt for renditions," the agency's snatch and grab policy against "terror suspects from around the world," sending many to Egypt, perhaps to disappear as Marjorie Cohn explained in her book "Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law," quoting a former CIA agent saying:

"If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear (after torture and interrogation) - never to see them again - you send them to Egypt," a place of no return for many, Suleiman in charge as impresario.

America Backing Regime Change?

On January 28, London Telegraph writers Tim Ross, Matthew Moore and Steven Swinford headlined, "Egypt protests: America's secret backing for rebel leaders behind uprising," saying:

For the past three years, regime change plans have been ongoing, according to WikiLeaks released documents, accessed here.

Dated February 2008 from the US Cairo embassy to Washington, they "disclose the extent of American support for" Mubarak opponents, saying "Egyptians need to replace the current regime with (the appearance of) a parliamentary democracy. Under undisclosed US control, of course, "several opposition forces - including the Wafd, Nasserite, Marama and Tagammu parties, and the Muslim brotherhood, Kifaya and Revolutionary Socialist movements - have agreed to support an unwritten plan for a transition to (a new order), involving a weakened presidency and an empowered prime minister and parliament, before the scheduled (September) 2011 presidential elections."

Though previously supporting Mubarak, the documents show US supporting backing forces while publicly praising him as an important ally. They also revealed regular contact with opponents throughout 2008 and 2009, planning regime change, but not what protesters have in mind.

In June 2006, the National Security Network (NSN) was established "to revitalize America's national security policy (by) developing innovative national security solutions (to counter) emerging threats...."

Arab populations have long heard variations on Washington's theme, repeated in a NSN January 27 press release, saying: "The Obama administration seeks to encourage political reforms without destabilizing the region."

In other words, democracy is messy and unreliable. Dictatorships are much easier to control, and when one despots proves unreliable or outlives his usefulness, replace him with another, perhaps smoothed by transitional authority.

Mubarak's time has passed. Business as usual is planned. Democratic rhetoric masks it, the same kind US audiences hear from leaders flouting it at home and abroad.

Comments on The Angry Arab News Service

Edited by Professor As'ad AbuKhalil, it provides daily commentaries on regional events. On January 29, it cited "Comrade Joseph" saying:

"I am very worried that the Americans have taken over the direction of the Egyptian revolution. Let us remember that all possible candidates to replace Mubarak (are US) handpicked....including (ElBaradei) as well as Army chief of staff Anan, or anyone else for that matter. Obama has proven once more that" America is the Arab world's strongest anti-democracy ally.

As a result, Arabs must be vigilant and "very cautious (about) what happens next. (America) wants to mortgage the freedom of all Arabs" to secure Western and Israeli interests.

Responding, AbuKhalil expressed less concern, saying: "there is (only) so much that the US can do to control the situation." However, he sees a "US coup at the top" because America and Israel want regime continuity without Mubarak. What follows depends on "how hard (Egyptians) press. (He) think(s) that they won't be fooled, even if the process of change take(s) a while, a year or more."

However events play out, they face formidable Washington and Tel Aviv adversaries, waging wars to solidify power, especially in strategically important places.

A Final Comment

Unless America plans war or wants foreign adversaries vilified, rarely ever do US media report overseas news, especially like Middle East uprisings. Notably, little about Tunisia, Jordan, Yemen or Algeria was covered. But Egypt's turmoil is main-featured on television and in print. Moreover, coverage includes unheard of pro-opposition views, meaning official Washington supports them.

In addition, though protesters want Mubarak out, anti-American signs aren't evident or reports of Washington's longstanding pernicious influence. Reform, however, requires ending it. Otherwise, new faces will continue old policies leaving deep-rooted hardships unaddressed.

In other words, everything will change but stay the same. Regional turmoil, especially Egypt's, will only reshuffle the deck to look different when, in fact, neoliberal exploitation will persist, covert forces well positioned to assure it.

Moreover, skilled Western and regional media will keep US and foreign audiences fooled, assuring support for new Washington favorites thought different from old ones, when, in fact, they're the same.

A Tale of Two Dictatorships

SR Editor — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:30:11 +0000

Illustration by Carlos Latuff

Anna Lekas Miller * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

To hear them talk, Western governments would love nothing more than an unrelenting indigenous Arab people's-led uprising against their corrupt dictatorships. Yet, when hundreds of thousands of Tunisians, Algerians, Egyptians, and Yemenis suddenly started revolting in the streets, risking very real threats of further repression, arrest, and even death, Washington seemed hesitant to acknowledge the political significance of the riots. How could they pass up such a golden opportunity to showcase them as an outstanding role model for those Iraqis and Afghanis who just can't get the hang of democracy no matter how much we spend our hard-earned tax dollars shoving it down their throats?

Oh, right. It doesn't quite work like that when the United States is in cahoots with the oppressive dictatorships in question.

Meet Tunisia. Tunisia is a post-colonial perfect child, boasting beautiful sandy beaches, eternally perfect weather, and many prestigious international conferences every year. It is the ideal French vacation spot, just Francophone enough to be the perfect once-colonized protégé, and just exotic enough to provide a cost-effective vacation of couscous and tourist-supported "authentic" souks. As far as diplomatic relations with the United States are concerned, former president and dictator of twenty-three years Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali graciously offered secret detention facilities [PDF] to aid the war on terror, clearly making his country the ideal, "Modern Arab State." As far as diplomatic relations with the United States are concerned, former president and dictator of twenty-three years Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali graciously offered secret detention facilities to aid the war on terror, clearly making his country the ideal, "Modern Arab State."

Both the United States and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) praise Tunisia as an "economic model" for North Africa and the Arab world. In this instance, their definition of an "economic model" is a liberalized, secular country that emulates the western "free market model." It also means that all businesses controlled by a power hungry, corrupt elite and unemployment affects more than half of the population including two in every five people with advanced degrees.

Keeping with the theme of being the ideal, secular, liberalized, "Modern Arab State," Tunisia under Ben Ali has also classified by Reports Without Borders as one of the five most repressive states in the world. Like a proud, adoring parent, the United States once again let it slide. As long as a corrupt dictator cooperates with NATO and AFRICOM, what are a few unwarranted journalist arrests and a little Internet censorship?

Tunisia may be a charmingly kleptocratic "economic model" for the Arab world, but in the grand geopolitical scheme, it is merely another pawn with a torture facility. Egypt, on the other hand, is another story.

Meet Egypt. Egypt is an oil-rich, profoundly important geopolitical player. Almost eight per cent of total world trade passes through the Suez Canal making Egypt crucial in the oil trade. Like in Tunisia, the Egyptian economic system is liberalized and oriented around the free market, thus making their inevitable and rampant corruption completely legitimate in the eyes of the United States. In addition to being strategically important and rich in natural resources, Egypt has a peaceful relationship with Israel, and thus weighs heavily in negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. In short, Egypt is modern, secular, and key to controlling the United States government's two favorite things: oil and Israel.

Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak's fall would most likely put the leadership in the hands of someone far less sympathetic to United States interests.

It was no accident that although Barak Obama's "State of the Union" fell on January 25th –the infamous day that Egypt erupted in its first round of successive protests inspired by Tunisia, Obama acknowledged the Tunisians, but not the Egyptians. On that same day, Hillary Clinton claimed that Mubarak's regime was "stable," while urging the Egyptian government to accept the changes, unblock social media sites, and support peaceful protests. In reality, though this reads as though Clinton is sympathetic to the demands of the Egyptian people, she is clinging to Egypt as an international ally for as long as she can.

While Barack Obama was waxing eloquently on the United States' role in promoting democracy, Egyptian police were attempting to quench a peoples' uprising with American-made tear gas. Egyptians were simply doing whatever it takes to "win the future."

Most American media has carefully negotiated their protest coverage by highlighting the triumphalism of social media, rather than the triumphalism of the protestors themselves. Instead of focusing on how thousands of people were inspiring one another in the streets, vowing to risk their lives and reputations until their government fell, a disproportionate amount of reporting focuses on how tech savvy protestors used third party clients or proxy servers to access Twitter or Facebook or how streams of tweets with the "#jan25" hashtag were being produced. In many instances, it was these proxy servers and Twitter hashtags that brought the news of police brutality and citizen bravery to the international community rather than the reported media itself.

Protests halfway around the world have taught us volumes about our own "democracy." Though Barack Obama throws an obligatory bone to the victorious Tunisians as his administration carefully skates around the Egypt issue, two decades of undying support for these two dictators makes our governments' democratic façade more and more transparent. After all, following the logic that a country that has been declared a "war zone" of tear gas, police brutality, and revolt is "stable," one could most likely convince themselves that a corrupt regime that is compliant with our national interests is not to be taken seriously.

Perhaps the time has come for the Arab world to shove some of their democracy down our throats.

* Anna Lekas Miller is a writer, student, and activist who has caused trouble in the streets and written things from San Francisco to Paris, but is now happily settled in New York City. You can follow her on twitter @agoodcuppa.

Selling the people short

Paul J. Balles — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 07:22:23 +0000

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

By diverting social capital from productive to destructive purposes, war and the preparation for war deplete, rather than enhance, a nation's strength. --Andrew J. Bacevich

Illustration by Carlos Latuff

Many industries that started in America have moved abroad under free trade (FTA) agreements to take advantage of cheap labour. Thus, Americans lose jobs at home to countries where labour costs less.

According to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), the number of US jobs created by export expansion in relation to the number lost to the growth of foreign imports, because of NAFTA in its first ten years, resulted in a net loss of 879,280 jobs.

Other free trade agreements have had similarly disastrous results for employment in America. President Obama, while expressing concern and hopes for job creation, has been simultaneously pushing for additional FTAs.

The problem: high unemployment for Americans. The solution has been to develop industries in America that cannot be moved abroad. One in particular, the defence industry, keeps its secrets and employees at home.

Warning America at the end of his presidency, Dwight Eisenhower, US general and commander of forces in WWII said, "We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."

According to the 2010 Department of Defence (DoD) Financial Report, DoD total budgetary resources for fiscal year 2010 were $1.2 trillion. Budgeted DoD expenditure for 2009 represented approximately 43% of all global military spending.

The US military budget doubled from 1998 to 2008 in the biggest explosion of military spending since the early 1950s - and now accounts for 56 percent of discretionary federal spending. Eisenhower's warning has been ignored.

Anyone following the news recently would know that many states and local communities in America have been laying off police, firemen and other community services.

Meanwhile the federal government splurges on military spending. This reflects a terrible distortion of security needs. Local security has been sacrificed to the military industrial complex.

Investigative historian and journalist Gareth Porter says that we have completed "the process of creating a 'Permanent War State' -- a set of institutions with the authority to wage largely secret wars across a vast expanse of the globe for the indefinite future."

The defence industry also recruits foreign customers for military hardware. The DoD generates those by indulging in wars, occupations and building vast military industrial sales.

How many military installations does the US have around the world? 1000 as Hugh Gusterson said in "Empire of Bases". MSNBC reported that America has military in 137 countries.

The US also benefits from sales of military hardware--often outmoded-around the world. Therefore America must also keep these other countries at war or under threats of war.

World military spending has now reached one trillion dollars, close to Cold War levels. Forty percent of arms sales are by America according to the Grimmett CRS Report for Congress.

Why does the US need all those bases in so many countries around the world? What are the excuses used by the US war machine for so many US military installations?

Recently, there's been talk about reducing the cost of government in America. A few have even suggested reducing the military budget.

However, reducing defence expenditures would mean huge losses of jobs, income and spending in the US, bringing about another worldwide great depression. Therefore the US needs the "Permanent War State" that Gareth Porter says we have created.

America now has the paradoxical situation of needing to stimulate wars that kill people so economies can feed people to keep them alive.

Even when the US pretends to help others economically, there are strings attached. Much of the aid America gives is military aid. The aid recipients are pressured to buy American manufactured armaments. Egypt is a case in point.

The US has kept Mubarak in power-it gave his regime $1.5 billion in aid last year-mainly because he has supported America's pro-Israel policies, especially by helping Israel maintain its stranglehold on Gaza.

Egypt has been the number two recipient (after Israel) of US foreign aid. In both 2009 and 2010, the economic aid amounted to 250 million dollars while the military aid reached 1.3 billion dollars.

US military aid to Egypt has been spent primarily on strengthening the regime's domestic security and its ability to confront popular movements.

In a report for the Carnegie Foundation on US aid to Egypt, Ahmad Al-Sayed El-Naggar asks "Why don't Egyptians notice the role of American aid to their country? The simple answer is that U.S. economic aid to Egypt, which amounted to $455 million in 2007, translated to only $6 per capita."

It was even less in 2010 when the total economic aid of 200 million could provide less than $3 per capita income. The people have suffered in poverty while Mubarak supported his army and the US military industrial complex.

In Egypt, only Mubarak, his cronies and the army have benefitted while millions of Egyptians starve. Is it any wonder they have taken to the streets in protest?

In America, the major concern is keeping the defence industry alive and its employees well paid. The talk at the top is about "humanitarian" concerns. For 10 years of Mubarak's 30-year rule, the talk has been the same for public consumption.

What they didn't count on: the young in Egypt learned how to use social networking to organize protests.

Both Egyptian and American leaders are experts at selling the people short.

* 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.

Revolutionary Middle East Change

Stephen Lendman — Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:38:00 +0000

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

Illustration by Carlos Latuff

Democratic Middle East birth pangs may have legs enough to spread regionally, including in Occupied Palestine.

Officially launched in Cairo in 1959, the General Union of Palestinian Students (GUPS) offers hope, driven by a commitment for Palestinian liberation. With more than 100 chapters and over 100,000 members, it's organized rallies, political debates, cultural programs, and other initiatives to spread truths about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Perhaps inspired by events across the region, on January 27, its press release headlined, "Palestinian students claim right to participate in shaping our destiny," saying:

"....(I)n order to reassert our inalienable rights, (we) claim our right to democratically participate in the shaping of our destiny. We begin a national initiative to campaign for direct elections to the Palestinian National Council (the PLO's legislative body) on the clear understanding that only a reformed national representative institution, that includes all Palestinians, those struggling in the homeland and those struggling in exile, can create a representative Palestinian platform, and restore the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people."

If popular uprisings offer democratic hope in Tunisia, Algeria, Jordan, Yemen and Egypt, why not Palestine freed from occupation!

Currently, Egypt is the epicenter of regional change, and since the 1978 Camp David Accords, the linchpin of US Middle East imperial policy. However, under Mubarak's brutal dictatorship, perhaps its day of reckoning has arrived, Robert Fisk saying:

What's wrong is visible and clear.

"The filth and the slums, the open sewers and the corruption of every government official, the bulging prisons, the laughable elections, the whole vast, sclerotic edifice of power has at last brought Egyptians on to the streets....This is not an Islamic uprising - though it could become one - (it) is just one mass of Egyptians stifled by decades of failure and humiliation."

Even New York Times writer Michael Slackman noticed, headlining his January 28 article, "Egyptians' Fury Has Smoldered Beneath the Surface for Decades," saying:

"The litany of complaints against Mr. Mubarak is well known....The police are brutal. Elections are rigged. Corruption is rampant. Life gets harder for the masses as the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer. Even as Egypt's economy (grew, so did) people living in poverty...."

Around half its 80 million people are impoverished, living on $2 a day or less. Unemployment is high, especially for youths. In contrast, "walled compounds spring up outside cities with green lawns and swimming pools." It's a nation "where those with money have built a parallel world of private schools and exclusive clubs, leaving the rundown cities to the poor."

Wesleyan University Professor Anne Mariel Peters says "The whole system is seen as (Mubarak's) fault. People do believe (he's) the absolute dictator."

They remember the hypocrisy of his 1981 inaugural address, saying:

"We will embark on our great path: not stopping or hesitating, building and not destroying, protecting and not threatening, preserving and not squandering."

Instead, he solidified absolute power. According to American University Professor Diane Singerman:

"Once you hollow out civil society and repress the unions and you concentrate so much power around your hands, you are vulnerable and it becomes the flip side of stability. I think he is hated for good reason: the constant humiliation, the over-the-top sort of need to control everything, the excessive force."

For three decades, absolute power, cronyism, corruption, and repression defined his rule, including its Emergency Law power to arrest anyone without charge and detain them indefinitely. According to the International Federation for Human Rights:

It grants "broad power to impose restrictions on the freedoms of assembly, movement or residence; the power to arrest and detain suspects or those deemed dangerous, and the power to search individuals and places without the need to follow the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code."

It's how despotism works, violating "rights guaranteed by the Egyptian Constitution, which provides for personal freedom in article 41, the inviolability of private homes in article 44, (and) freedom of movement and residence in article 54."

It also let Mubarak censor or shut down critical publications as well as try suspects in military tribunals convened to convict, not exonerate. As a result, many thousands of political opponents, activists and Islamists languish in prisons, many tortured, others killed.

Some compare his regime to the last days of Iran's Shah, including mass poverty and unemployment, repression, cronyism and corruption, near universal contempt for Egypt's ruling class, a capitalist dictatorship, a leadership with no legitimacy, anger for allying with Washington and Israel, and a profound sense of humiliation.

In 2005, the Egyptian Movement for Change (EMC - a coalition of leftists, Nasserists and Islamists) held a series of Cairo demonstrations, criticizing Mubarak publicly, including calling for him to step down. Since then, demands have grown for ending Emergency Law powers, letting judges supervise elections, raising wages, allowing independent unions, redistributing land to poor farmers, and other democratic reforms.

However, no broader movement for change emerged, and Mubarak neutralized dissent by allowing public criticism and privately owned opposition newspapers. According to one EMC member, however: "We were given a license to scream and vent, but what good did it do?"

Until now, most Egyptians remained quiet, largely because Mubarak's intimidation includes the omnipresent state security in neighborhoods, on campuses and wherever opposition might emerge. In addition, the hated Interior Ministry has an army of informers, targeting leftists, human rights activists and Islamists. It's one of Mubarak's most powerful tools, along with the army supported by generous Washington aid.

After 30 despotic years, his day of reckoning has arrived, human rights activist Ghada Shabandar, saying:

"Egyptians are sick and tired of being corrupted and when you live on 300 pounds a month (about $51), you have one of two options: you either become a beggar or a thief. The people sent a message: 'We are not beggars and we do not want to become thieves.' "

Youth Movement co-counder Asmaa Mahfouz added: "We want to fight corruption. These are all things that we have agreed on" besides demanding Mubarak go.

Mass Protests Continue

On January 29, Al Jazeera headlined, "Thousands in Cairo defy curfew," saying:

Anti-Mubarak protests include (t)ens of thousands of people" on Cairo streets, demanding he go. Defying the 4PM - 8AM curfew, soldiers haven't intervened. Some, in fact, said that "the only way for peace to come to the streets of Cairo is for Mubarak to step down."

Similar crowds again massed in Alexandria, Suez and other cities. At least three more killings were reported. "The Egyptian cabinet meanwhile has formally resigned, (and) Ahmed Ezz, a businessman and senior (ruling party) figure....also resigned (as) Planning and Budget Committee" chairman.

Protestors, however, want regime, not cabinet change. Reuters reported that police used live fire at protesters. A military officer said troops would "not fire a single bullet on Egyptians," adding that the only solution is "for Mubarak to leave."

Scores of deaths have been reported, including 22 in Cairo, 23 in Alexandria and 27 in Suez. Moreover, on Friday alone, over 1,000 were injured, and many hundreds have been arrested.

Under house arrest, Mohamed ElBaradei told Al Jazeera that protests would continue until Mubarak goes followed by systemic political changes. He also called his midnight speech "disappointing" and expressed similar sentiment about Washington's response, while saying change must be internal.

Obama Expresses "Partnership" with Egypt's Government and People

Obama, in fact, expressed hollow people support while allying strongly with Mubarak's dictatorship, saying:

"(T)hose protesting in the streets have a responsibility to express themselves peacefully. Violence and destruction will not lead to the reforms that they seek. (The) United States has a close partnership with Egypt and we've cooperated on many issues, including working together to advance a more peaceful region."

Washington, in fact, supplies nearly $2 billion in aid annually, mostly to repress dissent and assure Mubarak remains a reliable imperial ally. Obama also ignored decades of tyranny that fed up Egyptians demand end. Moreover, he expressed support for human rights on the same day WikiLeaks released cables disclosing US complicity in his use of torture and assassinations of political opponents.

At his January 28 briefing, White House press secretary was asked if Obama's support for Mubarak is unchanged. His response:

"Well, we are - again, we're monitoring a very fluid situation....this is not about picking a person or picking the people of a country."

Then asked what's next if legitimate grievances aren't resolved, he said: "(T)his is a situation that will be solved by the people of Egypt."

In other words, Washington unconditionally supports Mubarak. Egyptians must solve their own problems, America is complicit in causing.

Commenting on January 28, London Guardian columnist Simon Tisdall said "Washington needs a friendly regime in Cairo more than it needs a democratic government," adding that backing authoritarian rule is "pragmatic" for the same reasons Saddam Hussein was supported in the 1980s and numerous other despots today.

He also called "the balancing act performed by (Obama) and (Secretary of State Clinton) excruciating to watch," against "a backdrop of street battles, beatings, tear gas, flying bricks, mass detentions and attempts to shut information networks...."

An aroused Mohamed ElBaradei said:

"If you would like to know why the United States does not have credibility in the Middle East, that is precisely the answer."

Regular Live Coverage

Providing live updates, the Guardian quoted London School of Economics Professor Fawaz Geges calling events:

"the Arab world's Berlin moment. The authoritarian wall has fallen - and that's regardless of whether Mubarak survives or not. The barrier of fear has been removed. It is really the beginning of the end of the status quo in the region....Mubarak is deeply wounded. He is bleeding terribly. We are witnessing the beginning of a new era."

Other regime changes are likely, while Mubarak clings momentarily to power. His likely successor may be spy chief Omar Suleiman, named vice president, a newly created post never tolerated during three decades of his rule. Foreign Policy magazine ranked him the region's most powerful intelligence official, ahead of Mossad's Meir Dagan.

Ahmed Shafiq, former civil aviation minister and air force commander, was named prime minister. Egyptians reject them, demanding clean sweep changes, removing all despotic vestiges.

On Saturday, Army vehicles protected wealthy compounds in Cairo suburbs, five-star hotels, and government ministries.

According to City University, London Professor Rosemary Hollis:

"I think it will take a couple of days to organize (Mubarak's) departure if it happens. It's going to be a messy process and there will probably be (more) bloodshed. I don't think (you'll see) a war with the army on one side and the people on the other. (It) has to decide" which side to back. "It's one of those moments where....individual lieutenants and soldiers" choose which course to take. Splits in the ranks may occur. An interim government is likely. "The question is what replaces it."

Maan News said:

"Palestinian officials in Ramallah offered no comment on the Friday events in Egypt. (In Gaza), Palestinians have been watching the unrest in Egypt attentively, and while civilians say they are pleased with the prospect for change, demonstrations in the north and southern Strip on Friday (focused on condemning) the PA and PLO for" leaked Palestine Papers revelations.

"Gaza's Hamas-run government, like their compatriots in the West Bank, remained mum on the situation." Gazans agree that regime change is positive.

On Friday, Israel's daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth said a "revolution in Israel's security doctrine" could follow, according to a defense ministry official.

On January 29, Haaretz writer Anshel Pfeffer headlined, "In Egypt, protesters and soldiers declare: The army and the people are one," saying:

"(M)ilitary officers stationed in the area embraced the protesters, chanting" the above slogan "hand in hand." Hoisted on protesters' shoulders, they removed their helmets, chanting, singing, and saying we've already crossed the point of no return. "Game over," read signs. Haaretz columnist Amos Harel called it an "intelligence chief's nightmare." Netanyahu instructed all ministers and officials to stay silent, a senior one saying:

"Israel is in no way interested in involving itself in Egypt's affairs, and therefore we have received clear instructions to keep a low profile in the Egyptian matter." Clearly, they're concerned. According to Harel:

"(C)hanges could even lead to changes in the IDF and cast a dark cloud over the economy....If the Egyptian regime falls....the riots could easily spill over to Jordan and threaten the Hashemite regime. On Israel's two long peaceful borders, there will then prevail a completely different reality."

On January 30, in his first public comment, Netanyahu said:

"We are following with vigilance the events in Egypt and in our region....at this time we must show responsibility and restraint and maximum consideration....Our efforts have been intended to continue to preserve stability and security in our region. I remind you that peace between Israel and Egypt has lasted for over three decades," adding that efforts will be made to "ensure that these relations will continue to exist."

On January 29, an Amnesty International (AI) action alert said:

"Thirty years of repression is spilling onto the streets of Egypt in the forms of tear-gas, blood and bitter demonstrations. For four days, Egyptian protesters have suffered at the hand of (Mubarak's) security forces."

AI's fellow Egyptian activists want "their voices heard at various Egyptian embassies and consulates. We intend to do all we can to make that happen....That is why we're asking (support) to place an urgent call to" Egypt's Washington embassy at 202-895-5400, then press 1 to speak to a real person on repressive conditions.

"(D)on't take 'no' for an answer." Demand respect for human rights. "Help us make (the) embassy's phone ring off the hook" for democracy and justice!

Saturday evening, protesters again defied curfew orders. Soldiers aren't intervening in Cairo, Alexandria, Suez or elsewhere. Jordan's Muslim Brotherhood leader, Hamman Saeed, warned the Egyptian unrest will spread, toppling other Arab regimes allied with America.

Conditions remain fluid. Millions demand change and intend getting it. Mubarak's era has passed. Egyptian writer Mona Eltahawy spoke for many saying, "We've waited for this revolution for years. Other despots should quail. Change is sweeping through the Middle East...." It remains to be seen what follows. Follow-up articles will explain more.

Middle East Intifadas

Stephen Lendman — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:05:07 +0000

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

Protesters flee from tear gas fire during clashes in Cairo, January 28, 2011. REUTERS/Amr Abdallah Dalsh

Initially in Tunisia, popular revolt spread regionally across North Africa and the Middle East, erupting in Algeria, Jordan, Egypt and Yemen. On January 27, Al Jazeera reported revolutionary fervor in Egypt, saying:

"On Thursday, protesters hurled petrol bombs at a fire station in Suez, setting it ablaze. They tried but failed to (torch) a local" Mubarak-controlled National Party office. Near Giza, on Cairo's outskirts, police attacked hundreds of protesters with tear gas, rubber bullets and batons. In Ismailia, the scene repeated, police using similar tactics to disperse crowds. Ahead of expected massive Friday protests, Cairo was uncharacteristically quiet.

On January 28, Al Jazeerah headlined, "Fresh protests erupt in Egypt, saying:

Following Friday prayers, "angry demonstrators demand(ed) an end to Hosni Mubarak's 30-year presidency....(d)etermined protesters," vowing to "carry on until their demands are met."

In Cairo, Alexandria, Suez, Mansoura and Sharqiya, "protesters streamed out of mosques shortly after prayers," chanting anti-Mubarak slogans.

On Thursday night, former IAEA Director General and National Alliance for Change founder Mohamed ElBaradei returned home, saying he's ready to lead "transition" if asked. In a late 2010 Al Masry Al Youm interview, he expressed support for an opposition alliance saying:

"I hope in the next phase we will have a united opposition, the NAC, the Al-Wafd party, the (Muslim) Brotherhood, the Gabha (Democratic Front party) - we need everyone. And of course we need to link the young people with the labor unions and the elite with the young people."

On Friday, he reportedly was "prevented from moving freely by security forces." AP reported water cannons doused him, and supporters who tried shielding him were beaten.

So far, seven are reported dead. Well over 1,200 were arrested, yet protesters aren't deterred.

An international press freedom group said journalists were being beaten and arrested. Al Jazeera reported four French reporters apprehended. An AP photographer was attacked. The London Guardian said ElBaradei was "detained." Earlier on Friday he said Mubarak's regime was on its "last legs."

A CNN crew had its camera smashed. Vodafone said cell phone service was suspended "in selected areas." Internet service was also shut down. In Cairo and other cities, harsh crackdowns continued with tear gas, rubber bullets, some reported live fire, water cannons, sound bombs, beatings and arrests.

London Guardian correspondent Jack Shenker called Cairo a "war zone." WikiLeaks released a cable from US Egyptian ambassador Margaret Scobey saying:

"Torture and police brutality in Egypt are endemic and widespread. The police use brutal methods mostly against common criminals to extract confessions, but also against demonstrators, certain political prisoners and unfortunate bystanders."

Former US Middle East diplomat Aaron David Miller said:

"It's one thing when this happens in Tunisia, a marginal Arab state, but you're now talking about one of the two or three pillars of American security in the region being confronted with the ripple effects of a wave."

Graeme Bannerman, former US State Department Policy Planning Staff Middle East analyst said:

"Popular opinion in the Middle East runs so against American policies that any change in any (regional) government....that becomes more popular will have an anti-American and certainly less friendly direction towards the US which will be a serious political problem for us."

A circulated flyer said:

"Without beating around the bush or postponing or playing us for fools and without more false promises, we, the people of Egypt, demand all of our long forgotten rights to be granted and this time there is no turning back....we have learned our lesson....we have finally broken free of all fears."

On January 25, Egypt's "day of wrath," copies circulated, containing specific political and economic demands, including:

salary and pension increases;
financial aid for unemployed workers;
canceling the law of emergency, empowering authorities to arrest people without warrants;
demanding Mubarak's ouster and his son, Gamal, prevented from succeeding him;
dissolving Egypt's fraudulently elected parliament;
holding free democratic elections; and
banning Egyptian exports to Israel, mainly its natural gas.

From Alexandria, Dr. Ashraf Ezzat called Egypt's events "historic," perhaps signaling the end of repressive Mubarak rule and the nation's "addiction to Authoritarianism."

Events are fast-moving and breathtaking. Earlier, the Muslim Brotherhood refused to take part in street protests. That changed, the group saying it participated on Friday to control them.

On January 28, New York Times writers David Kirkpatrick and Alan Cowell headlined, "Clashes in Cairo Extend Arab World's Days of Unrest," saying:

Pouring out of mosques after noon prayers, "thousands of demonstrators....across Cairo and other Egyptian cities....intensified their campaign to oust President Hosni Mubarak...." Police confronted them violently, Reuters reporting:

"Dozens of people were wounded as police and demonstrators fought running street battles in Cairo on Friday in unprecedented protests against" Mubarak's three-decade rule. "Witnesses saw dozens of Egyptians bruised, bloodied and fainting." Medical sources reported at least five deaths and hundreds wounded.

"Snatch squads of plain clothes security men dragged off suspected ringleaders." Friday was the largest, bloodiest day so far. Reuters said, for the first time, army forces were on streets, but it wasn't clear what role they'll play. In Cairo's Tahir square, people encircled a military vehicle, shaking hands with soldiers, and chanting, "The army and people are united. The revolution has come."

On January 29, Al Jazeera headlined, "Protesters back on Egypt streets," saying:

"Similar crowds were gathering in the cities of Alexandria and Suez....They are calling for regime change....The latest protests reflected popular discontent with Mubarak's midnight address, where he announced that he was dismissing his government but remaining in power."

On Saturday, Cairo streets again looked like a war zone. Army forces replaced police. People embraced them as allies. Events are fluid and bear watching.

So far, protests show no signs of abating. Across the region, events are truly breathtaking. Long-suffering people taste change and demand it. They've never had a better chance than now, but getting it won't be quick or easy.

Popular Revolt in Yemen

On January 27, New York Times writers Anthony Shadid, Nada Bakri and Kareem Fahim headlined, "Waves of Unrest Spread to Yemen, Shaking a Region," saying:

On Thursday, thousands "took to the streets of Yemen (where) secular and Islamist Egyptian opposition leaders vowed to join large protests expected Friday as calls for change rang across the Arab world."

At issue - ending Ali Abdullah Saleh's 32-year rule. From 1978 - 1990, he was president of the Yemen Arab Republic (North Yemen). Since then, he chaired the Presidential Council of the Republic of Yemen (North and South Yemen).

Throughout Sanaa, the capital, thousands demanded he go, protesters chanting, "Enough being in power for 30 years! Gone in just 20 years," referring to Tunisia's Ben Ali. Earlier demonstrations preceded Thursday's mass one against a hated ruler of one of the world's poorest nations where half the population lives on less than $2 a day. Wealth distribution is extreme. Governance is notoriously corrupt and brutal. Chronic hunger is a major problem. Illiteracy tops 50%, and perhaps unemployment matches it.

Journalist Patrick Cockburn once called Yemen:

"a dangerous place. Wonderfully beautiful, the mountainous north of the country is guerrilla paradise. The Yemenis are exceptionally hospitable....humorous, sociable and democratic, infinitely preferable as company to the arrogant ignorant playboys of the (rich regional) oil states."

The capital Sanaa dates back to the 6th century BC Sabaean dynasty. However, it's power is limited, given the strength of tribes, clans, and influential families in a society very much a gun culture and prone to direct action.

On average, Yemenis own three guns per person in a nation of 23 million people, including one or more automatic weapons, like an AK-47 as well as heavier arms. Yemeni Professor Ahmed al-Kibsi once told a British reporter: "Just as you have your tie, the Yemeni will carry his gun," and isn't at all shy about using it.

As a result, "Yemen has all the explosive ingredients of Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan," so US entanglement there may become another quagmire, besides others in the region already, compounded by explosive revolutionary fervor.

Aided by Washington and Saudi Arabia, Saleh is waging repressive war against northern Shia tribes, causing thousands of deaths and many more displaced. In addition, he's fighting armed secessionists in the South.

The New York Times calls Yemen "a haven for Islamic jihadists and the site of what amounts to a secret American war against leaders of a branch that Al Qaeda has established there."

What's at stake? At most, Yemen has four billion proved barrels of oil reserves and modest amounts of natural gas, hardly a reason for war. More important is its strategic location near the Horn of Africa on Saudi Arabia's southern border, the Red Sea, its Bab el- Mandeb strait (a key chokepoint separating Yemen from Eritrea through which three million barrels of oil pass daily), and the Gulf of Aden connection to the Indian Ocean.

In late 2009, Saudi forces bombed and used tanks against Yemen. In addition, a rebel group called the Young Believers said US jets launched multiple attacks in Yemen's northwest Sa'ada Province. Britain's Daily Telegraph reported US Special Forces train Yemen's army, and operate covertly on their own. The CIA also operates freely, using death squads and daily drone attacks.

Unlike Tunisia's spontaneous uprising, an opposition coalition organized Yemen's protests, hoping for US backing whether or not possible. However, once unleashed, popular anger has a life of its own, inspired for the same reasons as in Egypt, Algeria, Jordan, and Tunisia - deep poverty, mass unemployment, high food and energy prices, repression, and governments unresponsive to popular needs.

On January 27, Al Jazeera headlined, "Anti-government rallies hit Yemen," saying:

"Tens of thousands (demanded change), call(ing) for an end to" Saleh's government. In Aden, a 28-year old unemployed man, Souad Sabri, self-immolated, protesting economic hardships. Medical officials said he was rushed to the hospital in critical condition.

Saleh is also accused wanting to hand power to his son, Ahmed, head of the elite Presidential Guard. In a January 23 television address, he denied it, saying "We are a republic. We reject bequeathing" the presidency. However, after decades of strongman rule, street protesters believe otherwise, wanting a clean sweep for change.

One banner read "Game over." A student shouted "We want change like Tunisia." Despite Yemen's largest protests since Saleh got power, security forces have mostly kept a low profile. According to a government spokesman:

"No major clashes or arrests occurred, and police presence was minimal. The government strongly respects the democratic right for a peaceful assembly."

On January 20, independent reports disagreed, saying clashes and gun battles erupted in Aden, injuring at least seven people. Government forces used tear gas and live fire to disperse protesters. Dozens were detained, including Tawakul Karman, a prominent human rights activist, accused of organizing anti-government demonstrations. Later released, she told CNN International that a Tunisia-inspired revolution was ongoing.

On January 28, Hakim al-Masmari, editor-in-chief of the Yemen Post told the BBC that people no longer will put up with widespread poverty, and that protests will likely continue because people believe "all chances of a dialogue with the ruling party are vanishing."

Uprising in Jordan

On January 28, Al Jazeera headlined, "Thousands protest in Jordan," saying:

As in Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria and Yemen, mass protests "demand(ed) the country's prime minister step down, and (that) the government curb rising prices, inflation and unemployment."

Denouncing Prime Minister Samir Rifai, many shouted, "Rifai go away, prices are on fire and so are the Jordanians." Protesters were joined by members of the Islamic Action Front and the Muslim Brotherhood's political wing. According to Professor Ibrahim Alloush:

"We're demanding changes on how the country is now run," accusing officials of impoverishing working people, and imposing regressive taxes, forcing them to pay proportionally more than they can afford. He also accused parliament of complicity with the prime minister. As a result, "This is what had led people to protest in the streets because they don't have venues for venting how they feel through legal means."

Jordanian demonstrations will likely continue as so far they're doing in Tunisia, Algeria, Yemen and Egypt. Other eruptions may follow, including perhaps in the West Bank against repressive PA enforcers, serving Israel, not Palestinians.

Note: During Israel's 2006 Lebanon war, then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice infamously told the Lebanese people they were experiencing "the birth pangs of a new Middle East." Relatives of the dead, the injured and displaced weren't amused. Today, in contrast, popular uprisings, for the first time, may produce real democracies that never before existed. Events are fast-moving and breathtaking. Only time will show how they play out.

A Final Comment

Unlike America's major media, Al Jazeera provides important coverage of world events, including, of course, in the Middle East. On January 27, however, New York Times writers Robert Worth and David Kirkpatrick headlined, "Seizing a Moment, Al Jazeera Galvanizes Arab Frustration," saying:

Middle East uprisings have a common thread "uniting them: Al Jazeera, the Qatar-based satellite channel whose aggressive coverage has helped propel insurgent emotions from one capital to the next." Calling it "Al Jazeera's moment," it helped "shape a narrative of popular rage against oppressive American-backed Arab governments" and Israel since established 15 years ago.

"That narrative has long been implicit in the channel's heavy emphasis on Arab suffering and political crisis, its screaming-match talk shows, even its sensational news banner and swelling orchestral accompaniments."

George Washington University Professor Marc Lynch was quoted saying:

"The notion that there is a common struggle across the Arab world is something Al Jazeerah helped create. They did not cause these events, but it's almost impossible to imagine all this happening without Al Jazeera."

The Times writers accused it of "tailoring its coverage to support Hezbollah (and) Hamas," Tunisia's uprising, earlier sympathy for Saddam Hussein, and most recently against Israel and PA authorities in the "Palestine Papers."

"There is little doubt that Al Jazeera takes sides in the Palestinian dispute." In fact, it produces credible journalism unlike The New York Times and rest of America's MSM, supporting wealth and power, imperial lawlessness, tinpot dictators like Mubarak, Ben Ali and many others, and corrupt US politics under both parties. They deliver managed news, not truth on what people most need to know. Thankfully, they can access AlJazeera and other alternative media sources online to find out, what growing numbers now do regularly.

Arabs, Oh Arabs, Revolt Against America’s Tyrants

Mohamed Khodr — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 10:24:27 +0000

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

Egyptian demonstrators brave police water canons and tear gas during a protest in Cairo after Friday prayers January 28, 2011. (Reuters/Yannis Behrakis)

"The greatest jihad is to speak the word of truth to a tyrant."
--Islam's Beloved Prophet Muhammad

One down, twenty one to go. The young man who burned himself alive in Tunis,

Mohamed Bouazizi, was a university graduate prevented by police from selling fruit and vegetables to make a living He committed suicide to protest the loss of his humanity under Ben Ali's tyrannical rule.

His death sparked a revolution in Tunis and awakened the minds and souls of oppressed Arabs across the region who sprang to the street to revolt against their own American owned and run tyrants. Ben Ali was one of America's favorite brutal Arab tyrants who for decades oppressed his people, denied their humanity, freedoms, and abused at will and whim their human rights. He embezzled billions of the people's money for himself, his wife, family, and cronies. At the end he could not withstand the power of a spontaneous mass uprising demanding his removal. He escaped like a frightened mouse from the unleashed peaceful wrath of his subjugated subjects.

The light of this young man's fire has lit a spark across the Arab world where people overcame their fear and apathy to demand their freedom from their American owned and run tyrants. From Algeria to Egypt; from Yemen to Jordan, from Lebanon, Syria, to Palestine, the streets are alive with the sounds of humanity long deprived of their most basic needs: freedoms, jobs, housing, an education, health care, clean water and sewage systems, electricity, and above all safety and security from multiple and brutal security services who only serve to protect the monarchs and military dictators.

The Wikileaks papers proved the treasonous inhumane surrender of these tyrants to the will of America, a nation whose foreign policy in turn is surrendered to Israel. America and Israel have massacred millions of Arabs under the pretext of security and war on terrorism. To secure their power Arab tyrants have given a free hand to both imperial powers to commit genocide against those who seek freedom from their oppressive hegemony, occupation, and destruction of lives and property.

Thus these American tyrants have engulfed in whole without any conscience that all who oppose Israel in the region such as Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas, are also a threat to their power. Hence, protecting Israel's security means protecting their own. Because these entities do not submit and surrender to the imperialism of Israel and America they are called "terrorists". But murderous dictators who do are "moderate regimes". That's why to these tyrants Iran is their primary enemy that must be attacked and bombed, not Israel, that is Judaizing Jerusalem, threatening Al Aqsa mosque with destruction, or massacring Palestinian children who go through the cracks of the Apartheid Wall to go to school.

These tyrant murderers will not go quietly. Before their overthrow they would've killed hundreds, if not thousands, of their citizens to hold on to their power and wealth. Such is their megalomaniacal sickness. They kill, bribe, imprison, torture, and exile all who dare even contradict their statements much less their policies. Despite Islam forbidding idolatry these psychos have erected statues to themselves across the country. People are obliged for their own safety to place the photos of these tyrants on their cars, businesses, and homes. Their government owned media praises their wisdom, knowledge, and intelligence every minute of the day. They are the sole light and saviors of their people forever until they die, get killed, or overthrown.

Now come the "Palestinian Papers" that not only reveal but confirm what Palestinians and Arabs have always known--the Palestinian leadership of Mahmoud Balfour Abbas, Saeb Sharon Erakat, Ahmed Ben Gurion Qurei, Mlohammed Zionist Dahlan, and others, have practically conceded Jerusalem and Palestine to the murderous genocidal Zionists. To these thieving traitors Hamas is the enemy, not Israel, that on a daily basis murders their people, including children, demolishes their homes, burns their olive trees, confiscates more land, continuously builds illegal settlements, steals precious water from thirsty masses, and permits settlers to kill at will innocent civilians. These murderers not only knew but supported Israel's genocide on Gaza that killed 1,500 civilians, including hundreds of children, as well as the deadly four year siege of 1.5 million people. As Saeb Sharon Erakat said: "I hate Hamas." Yet in none of the documents does he say he hates Israel. Despite all the concessions the Palestinian Authority surrendered to Israel, Israel would slap them in the face with total rejection as it did to President Obama's "request" to freeze settlements.

Erakat is the worst of these traitors. He is impulsive, thoughtless, willing to sell his family for a few photo ops in the White House. An insecure, weak, and inept man who's overwhelmed by his sudden fame. Yet all are illiterate, inept, and corrupt in the art of politics, diplomacy, and negotiation. However all do live in palatial villas and possesses several Mercedes cars. Not even the late Arafat surrendered Jerusalem as these thugs have done.

Only the total resignation of these Palestinian leaders and their judicial prosecution can give the Palestinians the dignity and just righteousness of their cause. These traitors have now severed all remaining ties and good will with other Arab tyrants.

So my dear brothers and sisters in the Arab world raise your voices, fill the streets, have courage, and do not stop until every tyrant, monarch or military dictator has been toppled. This is your Islamic and humanitarian duty.

The greatest values in Islam are freedom, democracy, and justice. Always be just for that is a command from God. Islam calls for all affairs amongst people to be settled by democratic consultations. No matter what, protest peacefully to protect the sacredness of lives and people's property.

"Their affairs are decided after due consultation among themselves" (Quran: 42:38)

The uniting power and energy for your Jihad is Islam. Unite under its banner and trust in God. Islam must be your weapon of mass demonstration.

Do not relent, do not give up, and do not rest until freedom rings from every mosque, every church, and every home. Bring these tyrants to justice to answer for their crimes against humanity and their theft of national wealth.

The Arab world does have nationalistic patriotic men and women who can be democratically elected to be your leaders. Such as the Noble Laureate Dr. Mohamed El Baradei in Egypt, Dr. Mustafa Barghouti and Dr. Hanan Ashrawi in Palestine. There are many competent leaders both within the Arab world and living in exile.

Do not ever allow the military back into the political arena. Your leadership must all be civilian and a new constitution must never allow the military to rule but to be under civilian control The military is the most dangerous threat to any democracy. Democratically elected civilian leadership must replace all the Monarchs and Emirs who inherit power.

It is time to free your bodies and minds from the decade's long scourge of tyranny.

The biggest winner in these revolts will be you and the future of your children.

The biggest loser in these revolts is America, long the protector and savior of these tyrants.

The eventual cutting off of all ties to Israel, boycotting its products and the products of any American or western company that deals or supports Israel, and ending all peace treaties with Israel will be the eventual path of freedom of Jerusalem and Palestine. All American military and intelligence bases in the Arab world must be removed. Islamophobia is rampant in Europe and America yet we offer them cheap oil and our land for their military and intelligence operations against Muslim nations? As the Jews say; "Never Again".

Despite the Palestinian traitors many nations are recognizing Palestine as a State and upgrading its diplomatic representation to the status of Embassies.

America overthrew and killed Saddam Hussein because he was a tyrant who oppressed his people. How profoundly hypocritical that this land of the "free" supports such tyrants and supports the most racist, tyrannical, and genocidal regime in modern history---Israel.

Arab lives are cheap and expendable to America, Europe, Israel and most of all to Arab tyrants, willing to allow America to bomb at will and wipe out entire villages in the Arab world as long as they can remain on the payroll of the CIA.

Let Freedom ring throughout the Arab world and then learn the word "NO" to America and Israel's genocidal policy for oil and land.

God be with you. Allah Akbar.

* 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.

Israel’s war on Jerusalem children: 1,200 arrested in one year

Jonathan Cook — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 17:43:10 +0000

By Jonathan Cook * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Israeli police have been criticized over their treatment of hundreds of Palestinian children, some as young as seven, arrested and interrogated on suspicion of stone-throwing in East Jerusalem.

In the past year, criminal investigations have been opened against more than 1,200 Palestinian minors in Jerusalem on stone-throwing charges, according to police statistics gathered by the Association of Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI). That was nearly twice the number of children arrested last year in the much larger Palestinian territory of the West Bank.

Most of the arrests have occurred in the Silwan district, close to Jerusalem's Old City, where 350 extremist Jewish settlers have set up several heavily guarded illegal enclaves among 50,000 Palestinian residents.

Late last month, in a sign of growing anger at the arrests, a large crowd in Silwan was reported to have prevented police from arresting Adam Rishek, a seven-year-old accused of stone-throwing. His parents later filed a complaint claiming he had been beaten by the officers.

Tensions between residents and settlers have been rising steadily since the Jerusalem municipality unveiled a plan in February to demolish dozens of Palestinian homes in the Bustan neighbourhood to expand a Biblically-themed archeological park run by Elad, a settler organisztion.

The plan is currently on hold following US pressure on Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister.

Fakhri Abu Diab, a local community leader, warned that the regular clashes between Silwan's youths and the settlers, termed a "stone intifada" [uprising] by some, could trigger a full-blown Palestinian uprising.

"Our children are being sacrificed for the sake of the settlers' goal to take over our community," he said.

In a recent report, entitled "Unsafe Space", ACRI concluded that, in the purge on stone-throwing, the police were riding roughshod over children's legal rights and leaving many minors with profound emotional traumas.

Until Obama's decision not to confront Netanyahu over settlements, there was little or no prospect of a resolution aimed at calling Israel to account getting as far as the Security Council. But that prospect is now a real one because the European Union is openly exasperated by Obama's lack of leadership on the matter. (Privately, some if not all EU leaders may well share Eric Margolis's view that Obama has shown himself to be "utterly without spine" and "terrified" of the Zionist lobby.)

In her public statement, Catherine Ashton, the EU's foreign affairs chief, said this:

"I note with regret that Israel has not been in a position to accept an extension of the moratorium as requested by the US, the EU and the Quartet. The EU position on settlements is clear – they are illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace."

But that was only the tip of an EU iceberg. For some months my sources have been telling me that almost without exception European governments, behind closed doors, are really "pissed off" with Israel, and were hoping that once the US mid-term elections were out of the way, Obama would be ready to read it the riot act and apply some real pressure.

A hint of what lies below the tip of the EU iceberg was made public in a letter 26 members of the European Former Leaders Group (EFLG) wrote to Herman van Rompuy, President of the European Council, with copies to the governments of its 27 member states. It called for strong measures against Israel in response to its colonial policy and refusal to abide by international law.

One of the letter's main proposals was that the EU should announce that it will not accept any unilateral changes to the 1967 border that Israel carried out against international law, and that the Palestinian state must cover an area the same size as the area occupied in 1967, with East Jerusalem its capital. To leave as little room as possible for ambiguity, the letter also recommended that the EU should support only minor land swaps on which the two sides agreed.

The signatories were:

Chris Patten, UK, (co-chair), former Vice-President of the European Commission; Hubert Védrine, France, (co-chair), former foreign minister; Andreas van Agt, Netherlands, former prime minister; Frans Andriessen, Netherlands, former finance minister and former Vice-President of the European Commission; Guiliano Amato, Italy, former prime minister; Laurens Jan Brinkhorst, Netherlands, former minister and vice-prime minister; Hans van den Broek , Netherlands, former foreign minister and EU Commissioner; Hervé De Charrette, France, former foreign minister; Roland Dumas, France, former foreign minister; Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Austria, former European Commissioner; Felipe Gonzales, Spain, former prime minister; Teresa Patricio Gouveia, Portugal, former foreign minister; Lena Hjelm-Wallén, Sweden, former deputy prime minister; Lionel Jospin, France, former prime minister; Jean Francois-Poncet, France, former minister and senator; Romano Prodi, Italy, former President of the EU Commission and prime minister; Mary Robinson, Ireland, former President; Mona Sahlin, Sweden, chairman Swedish Social Democratic Party; Helmut Schmidt, Germany, former chancellor; Clare Short, UK, former minister; Javier Solana, Spain, former High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy; Thorvald Stoltenberg, Norway, former prime minister; Peter D. Sutherland, Ireland, former Director-General of the WTO; Erkki Tuomioja, Finland, former foreign minister; Vaira Vike-Freiberga, Latvia, former president; Richard von Weizsäcker. Germany, former President.

They noted that "The year 2011 will be of critical importance in determining the fate of the Middle East, perhaps for many years to come." And one year on from their last report in December 2009 they said (my emphasis added):

We appear to be no closer to a resolution of this conflict. To the contrary, developments on the ground, primarily Israel's continuation of settlement activity in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) including in East Jerusalem, pose an existential threat to the prospects of establishing a sovereign, contiguous and viable Palestinian state also embracing Gaza, and therefore pose a commensurate threat to a two-state solution to the conflict... We consider it vital that the council should identify concrete measures to operationalize its agreed policy and thence move to implementation of the agreed objectives. Europe cannot afford that the application of these policy principles be neglected and delayed yet again. Time to secure a sustainable peace is fast running out... It is eminently clear that without a rapid and dramatic move to halt the ongoing deterioration of the situation on the ground, a two-state solution, which forms the one and only available option for a peaceful resolution of this conflict, will be increasingly difficult to attain... The EU has stated unequivocally for decades that the settlements in the OPT are illegal, but Israel continues to build them. Like any other state, Israel should be held accountable for its actions... It is the credibility of the EU that is at stake. The EU position could not be clearer, but – as we have argued above – failure to act accordingly, in the face of contraventions and disregard by Israel, undermines the EU and its credibility in upholding international law... At stake are not only EU relations with the parties directly involved in the conflict, but also with the wider Arab community, with which the EU enjoys positive diplomatic and trade relations.

One possible translation of that is something like, "Europe can no longer allow its own best interests to be damaged by support for Israel right or wrong."

It's no secret that Israel's deluded leaders and many of its brainwashed Jewish people don't give a damn about what the EU really thinks because, they believe, only America matters. That has been the situation to date, but could it be about to change?

There's a case for saying "Yes, perhaps", but not in the way Israelis might imagine. In their letter the 26 said that "key US figures" had suggested to them that "the best way to help President Barack Obama in his efforts to promote peace was to make policy that contradicts US positions" and which imposed consequences and costs on Israel.

One possible implication is that European leaders have been made aware that Obama needs and wants to be able to say behind his own closed doors something like: "If we don't require Israel to act in accordance with international law, we're heading for trouble with Europe and will become as isolated in the world as Israel is. We cannot let this happen."

Which brings me back to Obama's last card. The fact is that he does not have to instruct the US ambassador to the UN to vote against Israel in the Security Council. An American abstention would be enough to empower the nearest thing we have to world government to be serious about calling and holding the Zionist state to account for its crimes. And that could be, I repeat could be, a game changer.

On reality and its alternates: Glenn Beck vs. Julian Assange

Lawrence Davidson — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 23:20:25 +0000

By Lawrence Davidson * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

For those who pay attention to the battle of ideas that constantly goes on in the United States, two people presently have centre stage.

One is a man whose expertise is in the creation of alternate realities by playing fast and loose with the facts. This sort of enterprise has a long and sordid history to it, and while this fellow is on the rabid right, the tradition has its historical representatives across the political spectrum. There is never any lack of an audience for such promoters of alternate realities. Usually the size of the audience can be correlated to economic downturn, the defeat in war and popular notions of government incompetency.

The other man is a champion of the free flow of information. He believes that the only way citizens will avoid being swept into alternate realities, and victimized by the resulting ill-conceived government actions, is to have full knowledge of what policies are being pursued and their real consequences. Whether most people actually want to know these details is debatable, but this fellow is adamant that they should be available to anyone who cares to look.

Now we come to the question of who these men are and how they are perceived by the democratic government and "free" people of the United States.

Who is Glenn Beck?

Glenn Beck, our first personality, is an under-educated radio and TV personality turned political pundit. He was born in 1964 and has only a high school education. By his own admission Beck spent at least 15 years of his early adult life as an alcoholic and drug addict. He became suicidal in the mid 1990s and fantasied about imitating the manner of death chosen by the singer Kurt Cobain. He was pulled back from the brink with the help of Alcoholics Anonymous. Fifteen years is a long time to baste a young adult's brain in mind-altering substances, and I will leave it to the reader to decide if that history qualifies such a brain for political preaching. Yet, it is as a political wise man that millions of Americans now regard Glenn Beck.

Sporting a style of aggressive jargon that makes him a sure candidate for Eric Hoffer's "man of words with a grievance", Beck throws out accusations and suppositions which, with uncanny regularity, turn out to be wrong. However, that does not matter, for his listeners seem never to doubt him and so there is little motivation for Beck to doubt himself. Increasingly popular, his growing number of listeners accept him as a defender of the US Constitution and traditional American values. And from whom is he defending these things? From progressives and liberals, socialists and secularists and all those who would destroy that mythical ideal America that exists as an alternate reality in the minds of Beck and his followers. He characterizes all such enemies as members of "Crime Inc."

There is a strong naive simplicity in what Beck preaches. He espouses balanced budgets because "debt creates unhealthy relationships". Somehow Glenn Beck can hold mortgages and still remain on good terms with his wife and kids, but it seems to him sinful that the government sells more treasury bills than he feels is necessary. The government should be reduced to a minimum. As to the country's needy, that can be taken care of by private charity. If there is indeed such a thing as man-made global warming, that can be dealt with by the voluntary "greening" of personal homes. What we have here is the projection of small town ways to a country of approximately 350 million. Finally, Beck often makes demonstratively stupid anti-Semitic statements which he says cannot be anti-Semitic because everyone knows he is a friend of the Jews.

There have been times when Beck has confessed that he is not a political person but rather an "entertainer". Yet his denunciation of ubiquitous conspiracies, particularly of a leftist kind, and his regularly articulated rhetorical question, "What's the difference between a communist or socialist and a progressive...? One requires a gun and the other eats away slowly" is clearly not just show biz. And, what are we to make of the entertainment value of his repeated proclamation that Americans are in a battle to defend the "eternal principles of God" which makes "God the answer" to all our problems? No, whether Beck was originally playing at his "paleo-conservatism" or not, he is now so adapted to his role that what you see is what is there. The actor has been permanently transformed into the character he plays.

It is doubtful whether Glenn Beck has ever put forth a well thought out, fact-checked, position in his life. Yet such a failing has not prevented him from obtaining the backing of the powerful Fox Broadcasting Company. Beck and Fox are a very good fit. Both are part of a radical right which has now made itself appear acceptably all-American by redefining anything to the left of their positions as neo-socialist. And, they have drawn to themselves the millions of folks who are naive and simple conservatives living in a faux reality that defines the welfare state as communism and President Barack Obama as a Muslim agent seeking to impose sharia law on places like Oklahoma. For such folks Beck's nonsense somehow confirms all their hopes and fears. In their millions they are moved, weekly, to agree with whatever it is that they think he is saying.

The US government has made no objection to the Fox-Beck propaganda show. Both are, of course, protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. And, it is probably the case that at least some of the elements of elected government, for instance the Republican Party's right wing majority and the Blue Dog Democrats, are in agreement with all or part of Beck's message. The rest of the government, the liberal democrats for instance, seem frustrated and confused. They do not know how to respond to someone like Beck and so they hope that he will, in the end, prove a temporary phenomenon.

Who is Julian Assange?

Julian Assange , our second personality, is an Australian born internet expert. Born in 1971, he attended the University of Melbourne where he studied physics, mathematics and philosophy. However, he did not stay to complete a degree. He made an early career as a computer programmer and is the author of both free and commercial pieces of software. A strong anarchistic strain runs through Assange's early adult period. He was a member of a number of relatively benign hacker organizations and the ideal of information transparency seems to have been a strong driving force in his life from early on. All of which eventually led him to found Wikileaks in 2006.

It is Assange's contention that government secrecy almost always harms people and denies them the ability to make rational decisions. The press has the responsibility to fight against censorship but has been seduced into cooperating with the system it ought to be policing. "How is it," Assange asks, "that a team of five people has managed to release to the public more suppressed information ... than the rest of the world press combined? It's disgraceful."

There are those who see Assange as an "internet freedom fighter", and Daniel Ellsberg of the Pentagon Papers fame, has asserted that Assange "is serving [American] democracy and serving the rule of law precisely by challenging the secrecy regulations, which are not laws in most cases, in this country." But that is not how American and foreign intelligence agencies see Julian Assange. Secrecy is part of their reason for being and without it they are out of a job. To them he is a real threat. They have accused him of harming national security and putting in danger the agents that feed them their secret information. They offer no proof of any of this and fail to mention that the information they receive from these agents is often used to kill other people. Assange has described a line-by-line review procedure used to protect "innocent parties who are under reasonable threat" but government spokesmen disparaged this claim and just repeat their charges against him in robotic fashion.

The US government is clearly seeking the destruction of both Julian Assange and Wikileaks. For instance, in August 2010 allegations of rape and sexual harassment were made against Assange in Sweden. They were dismissed within 24 hours because the prosecutors found that "the accusations lacked substance". On 20 November 2010 an Intepol arrest warrant was issued for Assange stemming from these same charges. Assange and his supporters say that he is being framed. Given the record of those who are his enemies, this assertion is quite easy to believe.

Julian Assange has won several awards for battling censorship and upholding the public's right to know. He has appeared on a number of media venues both in the US and elsewhere. The British magazine the New Statesman included him in its list of the 50 most influential figures in 2010 and, it is reported, that he is in the running for Time Magazine's 2010 man of the year. Nonetheless, Assange's loyal following is minuscule and if he becomes better known to the public at large it is likely to be a function of the smear campaign now being waged by the intelligence agencies. Their expertise in such covert operations is beyond question.

Beck vs. Assange and what it all means

Glenn Beck and Julian Assange represent two options for the American state of mind. Beck is a charlatan who preaches an alternate reality that affirms the untested, ahistorical and prejudicial assumptions and feelings of millions of Americans. These are voting citizens who know little of what lies beyond their neighbourhoods, but know absolutely how they feel. Beck tells them that their feelings really do correspond to the state of the world and so they avidly, loyally, listen to him. We all like to be told that we are right. That makes Glenn Beck a source of ego-re-enforcement for a significant segment of the population.

Julian Assange is a real truth teller who shatters assumptions, calls into question feelings, and would force us all to look at the historically objective information that best represents how things are. What Assange is doing makes no one comfortable and reinforces nobody's ego. He stands up and speaks truth to power but, as Noam Chomsky once pointed out, power already knows the truth. If power bothers about the truth at all it is to keep it largely secret. To do so it seeks the real truth teller's destruction while leaving the charlatan free to play the Pied Piper with impunity.

This does not bode well for the future of America and perhaps the West at large. Too many Americans, and their leaders as well, haven't got an accurate sense of the real world. In part, that is why the US government regularly formulates domestic and foreign policies that answer the demands of interest groups while harming the rest of us. Such policies fail in the long run. In doing so they open political space for both charlatans and truth tellers. And here they are in the persons of Glenn Beck and Julian Assange. Now America can choose.