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

Introduction

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

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

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

The Nature of the Arab Economies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rentier Rule: By Arms and Handouts

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

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

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

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

Neo-Liberal Destabilization

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

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

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

The Street against the Palace

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

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

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

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

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

Converging Conditions and the "Demonstration Effect"

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related posts:

• Miss Bahrain, Miss Arab World 2007 and Stereotypes
• Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2006
• Palestine is the key to Arab democracy

Hassan Barari * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

The refugees' right of return has become a key issue in political discourse in Jordan. Neither the government nor opposition forces can afford to suggest an alternative point of view. Explicit in official statements is that Jordan has a stake in final status issues, particularly refugees, and it will accept nothing short of a "just" solution to the refugee problem.

The concept of "just" solution is incorporated in the text of the Arab Peace Initiative endorsed in March 2002. The text reads: "a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem is to be agreed upon in accordance with United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194." Judging from what we know about previous negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Palestinians are not serious when they talk about the right of return. Diverse accounts of previous negotiations show clearly that the Palestinian negotiators have given up on the right of return and instead suggest the return of a few thousand refugees.

This submission, on the part of the Arabs, has to do with a widely-held conviction that Israel will not accept the right of return of about four million Palestinian refugees lest this compromise the Jewish nature of the state, the raison d'etre of Zionism. In private, many Arab officials make the case that Israel will not hesitate to pull out of any peace process if this core Zionist value is threatened. Therefore, this reasoning continues, the Arabs must be realistic and accept other options for solving the refugee problem, including "tawtin" or patriation. One need only read the Geneva document signed by Israeli non-officials and their Palestinian counterparts to see that the Palestinians have written off the concept of refugees' physical return to Israel proper.

Without a doubt, the Arab position as indicated in the above clause of the API is an accommodating one. It was phrased to send a clear message to Israelis that any solution that is not agreed upon by Israel will not be on the table. Put differently, the clause clearly gives Israel veto power over any solution that is not to Israel's liking.

That said, one needs to read article four of the API to understand the predicament of the Arabs. This article posits "...the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation [tawtin] which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries." This is most relevant to Jordan and Lebanon.

On the whole, Jordanians argue that Palestinian refugees must be repatriated regardless of how this affects Israel as a state and society. Political forces view tawtin as an abhorrent option because it has the potential to compromise the identity of Jordan. East Bankers in particular fear tawtin lest this transform them into a minority in their own country. The reformist nationalist Jordanians view this identity issue as an obstacle to introducing much needed genuine political reform.

Even the Islamists are against tawtin. In fact, one of the reasons for their opposition to the Oslo agreements and the 1994 Wadi Araba Jordan-Israel peace agreement is the issue of refugees. Neither Islamists nor Jordanian nationalists trust the PLO to negotiate with Israel on this specific issue.

Although the government has not said anything different publicly, some former officials, including a former prime minister, say that Jordan is for a "just" solution, one that enables the refugees to practice the right of return. Nevertheless, they insinuate that if refugees choose not to return they will be dealt with as Jordanian citizens with full rights. One may interpret this position as an acknowledgment of the impotence of the Arabs to do more. By throwing the ball into the court of refugees themselves, the state wants to pass the buck.

Some academics and politicians indicate they probably would not mind tawtin when they focus their arguments on displaced persons rather than refugees. Their argument is that if the displaced persons (some 900,000, who fled to Jordan in 1967 and thereafter) go back to the West Bank and Gaza, then East Bankers will be the majority and democracy would be welcome even if the refugees remain. In fact, many see the return of displaced persons as a personal decision, while the PLO rejects that notion despite its statements to the contrary.

In brief, regardless of where the regime in Jordan stands on this issue, Jordanians on the whole mistrust the PLO to handle this issue separately. Any decision on this will directly complicate the situation in Jordan, thus sowing the seeds of instability. For this reason, many politicians argue for better relations with Hamas to make it difficult for the PLO to concede and solve the problem at Jordan's expense.

* Hassan Barari is professor of international relations at the University of Jordan.

Related posts:

• Rethinking Palestinian refugeehood
• With US $ Benny Elon to launch huge ad campaign to resettle Palestinians
• Liquidating RoR unveiled

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

"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.

* 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.

Related posts:

• Can SESAME become an oasis of peace in the Middle East?
• Israel’s Longstanding Middle East Plan
• Press Freedom in the Middle East

A quick survey in Amman reveals some exciting but (not)surprising strong opinions on subjects such as Palestine, Israel, Iraq, Water, Oil, Economy, Nuclear Energy, Tourism, Honour Killing, Women and Tribal System.

Part 1/2:

Video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvWEvCl2iVA

Part 2/2:

Video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocGz-EUt8Mo

Related posts:

• YouTube WIPE “Gaza Massacre” video from records!
• Updated: Gaza Massacre Video “Inappropriate Content”
• Jordan River Pollution

By Haitham Sabbah

Garment Factory In Jordan. Photo: Yahya Qawasmi, Al Tajamouat Industrial City

As mentioned here, the US Department of Labor released their long-awaited report (PDF) on goods produced by "Child Labor" and "Forced Labor".

The list is a huge boon for consumers who want to choose slave-free products. At least one can decisively take action to prevent slavery in the production of consumer goods by holding companies and countries accountable for the slavery they use in making the goods we buy.

On the other hand, I was surprised to see Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon among the list of countries who use Child Labor and Forced Labor in making some goods that we buy.

The list of good per country is as follows:

Egypt: Cotton and Stones (limestone) -- both Child Labor
Jordan: Garments -- Forced Labor
Lebanon: Tobacco -- Child Labor

Under international labor standards, Child Labor and Forced Labor are defined as:

"Child Labor" under international standards means all work performed by a person below the age of 15. It also includes all work performed by a person below the age of 18 in the following practices:

1. all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale or trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom, or forced or compulsory labor, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict;
2. the use, procuring, or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of pornography or for pornographic purposes;
3. the use, procuring, or offering of a child for illicit activities in particular for the production and trafficking of drugs; and
4. work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety, or morals of children.
The work referred to in subparagraph (4) is determined by the laws, regulations, or competent authority of the country involved.

"Forced Labor" under international standards means all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty for its non-performance and for which the worker does not offer himself voluntarily, and includes indentured labor. "Forced Labor" includes work provided or obtained by force, fraud, or coercion, including:

1. by threats of serious harm to, or physical restraint against any person;
2. by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, if the person did not perform such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint; or
3. by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of law or the legal process.

This even made me more worried. I can understand the "Child Labor" in some areas due to extreme poverty, although this can't serve as an excuse for child labor, but "Forced Labor" and having that in JORDAN, it sounds like a stereotypical Hollywood movie about Arabs.

While I tend to doubt most (if not all) reports by official US agencies because of their hidden agendas, which are usually written carefully to meet certain objectives, which at the very least can be described as "blackmailing" governments and countries, however, I also believe that "there is no smoke without fire".

Now some facts. Garment factories in Jordan are many and well known to have a good number of laborers working in them. Most products and goods are made for export to the US and European markets. However, what most non-Jordanians don't know is that this industry has grown rapidly after the peace agreement between Jordan and Israel. I don't know the exact number of these factories around Jordan, but I know for sure that Israeli businessmen own and run most of them. The reason why Israelis opened these factories in Jordan is the "Cheap Labor", which any businessman will be hunting for around the world. But to turn this "cheap labor" to "forced labor" is a dangerous factor if it is true.

Now this sounds conflicting. Is it the Israeli-owned garment factories in Jordan which flagged Jordan to be listed in this report, or the few other Jordanian-owned factories, or both? And if it is the Israeli factories, should we believe that the report is so unbiased to list Jordan while they know that the factories are run with Israeli money? Or is it a typographical mistake by the agent who wrote the report and missed this part intentionally or due to ignorance? I personally tend to believe the last one.

In Jordan, we got used to accepting the term "Cheap Labor", but to turn that to something worse than slavery and making it "Forced Labor"? This is the last thing one can imagine to hear. But look for the cause...

I hope I'm wrong, but I also hope this opens door for investigations to get to the bottom of it and I'm sure Jordan will not accept to be included in this shameful list due to a crime done on its soil by inhuman businessmen such as the Israeli Zionist Jews. I know this will not be easy, but I'm also sure Jordan and Jordanians will not accept that their people (and other nationalities) work in such conditions, which is worse than slavery.

Interested investigators can start with the list of references at the end of the report (page 118-119) which can be downloaded from here (PDF).

Related posts:

• Forced labor for Palestinian children in Israeli prison
• Anthem for Someone’s Child
• Haitham Sabbah – Obama Peace Plan

I just can't stop myself from laughing since last night after I saw the brave Iraqi journalist Muntadar al-Zeidi shouting "A goodbye kiss, you dog!" and hurled his shoes at Bush during his last press-conference in Baghdad on December 14, 2008.

Anyway, even my kids enjoyed the show when they saw what happened to Bush and each of them wished that he could send the same "gift" to Bush. They asked me how can they send their shoes and I told them that we can send it over air. Since then they were not sure which pair of shoes each of them will send, so I suggested to take a picture of all the shows. So here we go: "A goodbye kiss, you dog!" from me and all my family.

A goodbye Kiss, you Dog-Bush!

Please consider this as open invitation to join and send your own "Goodbye kiss, shoes!"

Post your shoes-gift photo on your blog and spread the invitation IN HONOR OF MUNTATHER'S BRAVE AND BEAUTIFUL GESTURE.

Update: AnomalousNYC had this idea in action on Flickr. Please post your photo(s) in this new group too.

Related posts:

• Saraya al Aqaba; Goodbye Amman!
• Kiss of Death
• Video: Goodbye, Tony Blair

One of the most creative (if not the best) valentine gifts by one of the lovers in Jordan!

"A donkey in red" :-)

Related posts:

• Valentine Wishes: Jordanian Style
• Surprise!
• Jordan Planet Icons

It's time of the year for Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2007. With all my reservations regarding Reporters Without Borders neutrality (having doubt after knowing that France is their financial supporter, although they are an NGO!), yet, their report was always a good indicator, if not the closest to reality - at least from my experiences as a blogger from the Middle East with all the sorrow and sad stories that I went through and heard of - when it comes to measure the freedom of speech in general and freedom of press in particular.

Every now and then we hear about new rules and regulations around the Arab World that makes it harder for press to speak the 'truth'. Not to mention the censorship applied in many Arab countries such as - but not limited to - United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc... worst is to know that this list is getting bigger day by day, but with different terms and means such as the official watchdogs of local authorities to monitor and nail bloggers and detain them, e.g. Egypt cases.

Having said the above, lets look on how do 'Arab States' stand this year, but before this, let's note the leading paragraph of the report:

Bloggers now threatened as much as journalists in traditional media

Doesn't sound good news at all... following that by few paragraphs,

Outside Europe - in which the top 14 countries are located - no region of the world has been spared censorship or violence towards journalists.

And who are these 14 countries? Iceland, Norway, Estonia, Slovakia, Belgium, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, Portugal, Switzerland, Latvia, Netherlands and Czech Republic. Congratulations to these leading countries, and shame on the rest!

Note that the Big Brother and the Queen are not in the above list. But anyway, they are better than some others.

Back to Arab States ranking, the story is as expected. Looking at the leading countries from the bottom we find that Somalia, Palestine and Iraq are ranked 159, 158 and 157 respectively. Not surprised by this due to what they are going through with the Israeli occupation from one side and from the USA 'Freedom Operation' on the other side, beside Somalia's 'brothers war', but this is not enough excuse for them to be leading the bottom.

The battle raging between Hamas and Fatah is the main cause of the large number of serious press freedom violations in the Palestinian Territories (158th). Hostage-taking, arrests, physical attacks and ransacking of news organisations - the Palestinian media and the few visiting journalist are threatened from all sides.

In Iraq (157th), what journalists fear most are the armed groups that target them without the authorities ever finding a way to put an end to the litany of violence. More than 200 journalists and media assistants have been killed since the start of the US-led invasion in March 2003.

Next comes Libya ranked 155, which is not far from Palestine and Iraq, but I guess this country is going through worst that Israeli and USA occupation, so they are excused.

Now comes Syria as rank 154 and they are also excused because the are in "continuous state of war" against God knows who?! (if you know, let me know).

Who's next? Saudi Arabia (148), Egypt (146), Tunisia (145), Yemen (143), Sudan (140). Great mix and match. Rich and educated countries with poor and highly illiterate percentage of the population countries, that if we give Sudan the excuse like their Palestinian, Iraqi, Libyan and Syrian brother and assume that they are in war against 'poverty'!

Algeria (123), Jordan (122), Bahrain (118), Morocco (106) and Lebanon (98). Not really good and can do much better, specially Lebanon. Next comes Qatar (79), United Arab Emirates (65), Kuwait (63) and Mauritania (50), which is the best position that any Arabian country could reach this year, so congratulations to Mauritania for being at least among the top 1/3 of the list!

Some non-European countries have made their first appearance in the top 50. They are Mauritania (50th), which has climbed 88 places since 2004, Uruguay (37th) and Nicaragua (47th).

Wow! Big hand for them.

Quoting the report again and looking at the Big Brother:

There were slightly fewer press freedom violations in the United States (48th) and blogger Josh Wolf was freed after 224 days in prison. But the detention of Al-Jazeera’s Sudanese cameraman, Sami Al-Haj, since 13 June 2002 at the military base of Guantanamo and the murder of Chauncey Bailey in Oakland in August mean the United States is still unable to join the lead group.
[...]
We regret all the same that only two G8 members, Canada (18th) and Germany (20th), managed to be among the top 20.

And as a blogger, this is the worst part of the report:

Government repression no longer ignores bloggers

The Internet is occupying more and more space in the breakdown of press freedom violations. Several countries fell in the ranking this year because of serious, repeated violations of the free flow of online news and information.

In Malaysia (124th), Thailand (135th), Vietnam (162nd) and Egypt (146th), for example, bloggers were arrested and news websites were closed or made inaccessible. "We are concerned about the increase in cases of online censorship," Reporters Without Borders said. "More and more governments have realised that the Internet can play a key role in the fight for democracy and they are establishing new methods of censoring it. The governments of repressive countries are now targeting bloggers and online journalists as forcefully as journalists in the traditional media."

At least 64 persons are currently imprisoned worldwide because of what they posted on the Internet. China maintains its leadership in this form of repression, with a total of 50 cyber-dissidents in prison. Eight are being held in Vietnam. A young man known as Kareem Amer was sentenced to four years in prison in Egypt for blog posts criticising the president and Islamist control of the country's universities.

Free Kareem!

Complete list in attached image (click to enlarge).

Related posts:

• Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2006
• Miss Bahrain, Miss Arab World 2007 and Stereotypes
• Arab Discriminates Against Women. Why Is That So?

I admit I have missed the news when it was announced end of last July, but better late than never.

Honored to be Bahraini by soul for living in Bahrain for the last four years, I am very happy to know that Wafaa Ganahi, a 23-year-old teacher from the Law Faculty of Bahrain University, won the title, while the first runner-up was Miss Egypt Shaimaa Mansour and Miss Lebanon Rula Bahij, 23, was the second runner-up. Out of seventeen women from 15 countries attended the final competition.

On the other hand, what does this contest and these photos tells us other than the general perceptions about such events? Well, for me they mean a lot.

First, let me congratulate Miss Arab World, Miss Bahrain. She deserved it, and this leads me to my first note. As you can see from the attached photos, Miss Bahrain is a veiled lady, which leads to the conclusion that Miss Arab World - as well miss world - does not need to be unveiled to win a beauty contest. At least in beauty standards if you agree with me that veil does not hide beauty. I know that bikini show in such beauty contests is suppose to be a standard event, which probably every male in this universe are looking for :-) but Miss Arab World, and Miss Bahrain broke this rule - if I may consider it as a rule - and won for her beauty, real beauty. Not only that, but she also received official tribute which reflects how open Bahrain is.

Second, I'm not surprised to see some unveiled beauties from the last place one can expect, such as Saudi Arabia. The girl is gorgeous, but I bet that she is on the 'top wanted list' by Saudi religious men now, not for anything related to terrorism, no, but for her unveiled beauty and daring to show up. In my terms, Miss Saudi Arabia won Miss Arab World for her braveness to participate with all what we know about how she was perceived in her home country. Most probably she lives outside Saudi and her dreams to visit her homeland vanished forever.

Third, I'm really surprised and happy to see beauties from other conservative Arab countries such as Miss Yemen and Miss Sudan. They are setting new standards along with Miss Saudi Arabia and breaking all the stereotypes that we hear day and night by the Western media. Yes, behind the Hijab's, Niqab's and Burqa's we have very pretty ladies and we are not ashamed of showing them, in a modest way. A new generation will always fight the taboos for better life.

Last but not least, as a Palestinian, I'm proud to see Miss Palestine participating in this event despite all what Palestinians and the occupied lands are going through day and night by the Israeli terrorist occupation. Unlike Miss Israel, just imagine how many crosscheck she had to pass to reach an Israeli occupied port to be able to travel to Cairo for the event. Even if she lives in Israel, her journey will be under the same rules that govern the travel all Arab and Palestinian from Israel (more humiliating example).

Alright, enough blah blah... back to business, here are some photos I gathered from different sources around the web. In no particular order, take a look at Miss Bahrain, Miss Libya, Miss Saudi Arabia, Miss Lebanon, Miss Tunisia, Miss Egypt, Miss Morocco, Miss Kuwait, Miss Iraq, Miss Jordan, Miss Syria and Miss Algeria.

(Click thumbnail to enlarge)

Related posts:

• Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2006
• Arab Discriminates Against Women. Why Is That So?
• Can SESAME become an oasis of peace in the Middle East?

This June marks the fortieth anniversary of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. Four decades of control maintained by force of arms have enabled Israel to impose its will on the occupied territories and to remake them in its own image.

Here is FAQ on the 1967 war:

1. How did the 1967 war begin?

2. Which countries were involved in the fighting?

3. What was the outcome?

4. How did Israel justify its attack?

5. Is Israel's version of the facts universally accepted?

6. If Israel's claimed reasons for the attack were false, what were its true objectives?

7. What was the chain of events leading up to the war?

8. Why was the UN Emergency Force (UNEF) only on the Egyptian side of the border and not on the Israeli side as well?

9. Where were Egypt's troops on the day preceding the war?

10. What role, if any, did the United States play in the diplomatic efforts to avert armed conflict?

11. What were the consequences of the 1967 war for Palestinians?

12. What is the legal status of the land Israel seized in 1967?

13. What were the long-term implications of the war for peace and stability in the region, and for the status of international law?

1. How did the 1967 war begin?

The war began on the morning of June 5 with devastating Israeli air strikes on the Egyptian airforce, most of which was destroyed on the ground. Arab nations then came to Egypt's defense. Israel's first-day success brought air superiority which enabled it to decimate numerically superior ground forces.

(top)

2. Which countries were involved in the fighting?

Israel, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. Other Arab countries, including Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Algeria, contributed arms and small contingents of troops to the fighting.

(top)

3. What was the outcome?

Israel quickly defeated the Arab armies, and seized the Syrian Golan Heights, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), the Gaza Strip, and the Sinai Peninsula. Israel's rapid victory stunned the international public. But Israeli and U.S. intelligence had both predicted an easy Israeli victory, even in a battle waged on multiple fronts.

(top)

4. How did Israel justify its attack?

Israeli UN envoy Abba Eban initially claimed to the United Nations Security Council that Egyptian troops had attacked first and that Israel's air strikes were retaliatory. Within a month, however, Israel admitted that it had launched the first strike. It asserted that it had faced an impending attack by Egypt, evidenced by Egypt's bellicose rhetoric, removal of UN peacekeeping troops from the Sinai Peninsula, closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, and concentration of troops along Israel's borders.

The Soviet Union introduced a resolution to the UN Security Council naming Israel the aggressor in the war. This resolution was blocked by the U.S. and Great Britain. Thereafter, the U.N. failed to rule definitively on the legality of Israel's actions, although it called for Israel's withdrawal from territories it seized in the fighting.

(top)

5. Is Israel's version of the facts universally accepted?

Israel's claim of an impending Egyptian attack has been widely accepted in the West. The Israeli public had been led to believe that it faced a threat of imminent attack, and perhaps even annihilation. However, the veracity of Israel's claim is increasingly questioned.

A number of senior Israeli military and political figures have subsequently admitted that Israel was not faced with a genuine threat of attack, and instead, deliberately chose war. Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli army chief of staff during the war, later stated: "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." (i) General Mattityahu Peled, a member of Israel's general staff in 1967, opined that "the thesis according to which the danger of genocide weighed on us in June 1967, and that Israel struggled for its physical existence is only a bluff born and developed after the war." (ii) Menachem Begin, not yet prime minister but a member of the Israeli cabinet, allowed that: "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." (iii)

(top)

6. If Israel's claimed reasons for the attack were false, what were its true objectives?

One objective may have been territorial expansion. Some Israeli politicians and military leaders, such as former Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and Minister of Defense Moshe Dayan lamented the failure to seize East Jerusalem and the West Bank in the 1948 war. Before the war, Jordan's King Hussein told the American ambassador: "They want the West Bank. They've been waiting for a chance to get it, and they're going to take advantage of us and they're going to attack." (iv)

Second, Israeli politicians were genuinely fearful of Gamal Abdul Nasser, the charismatic leader of Arab nationalism. They may have seen the war as an opportunity to embarrass him and deflate the movement he embodied.

Third, Israeli leaders may have seen military confrontation with the Arab states as inevitable, and chose to engage in battle at a time and under terms of their choosing. Menachem Begin, for example, characterized Israel's war aim as to "take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation." (v)

(top)

7. What was the chain of events leading up to the war?

The progression toward war was sparked by Israel's attack on the West Bank village of Samu' in November 1966. Israeli forces, purportedly "retaliating" against raids by Palestinian guerrillas, killed 18 civilians and Jordanian soldiers, and razed nearly the entire village. After the attack, King Hussein bitterly criticized President Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt for "hiding behind" the UN Emergency Force (UNEF), stationed in the Sinai Peninsula after Israel's 1956 attack on Egypt, and failing to act in line with his Arab nationalist rhetoric. The criticism, echoed by the Arab press, drove Nasser into a more militant posture toward Israel.

Tensions were also building between Israel and Syria, largely due to Israel's repeated attempts to farm in the Demilitarized Zone that had separated Israeli and Syrian troops since the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948-49. In April 1967, one such incident escalated into an aerial battle during which Israel shot down six Syrian fighter jets, including two over Damascus.

The Soviet Union, at the time closely allied with Syria, then shared intelligence reports with Nasser that suggested an impending Israeli attack on Syria. The reports of major Israeli troop movements along the Syrian border were inflated, but not entirely inaccurate. In early May the Israeli Cabinet had authorized an attack on Syria, although the scope of it remained a matter of internal debate. Soviet exaggerations may have been designed to stir Egypt into a more aggressive stance in support of Syria, thereby deterring the feared Israeli strike.

Nasser responded by requesting the removal of the UN Emergency Forces from the Sinai Peninsula, replacing them with Egyptian troops, and declaring the Straits of Tiran (leading from the Gulf of Aqaba into the Red Sea) closed to Israeli shipping.

(top)

8. Why was the UN Emergency Force (UNEF) only on the Egyptian side of the border and not on the Israeli side as well?

The UNEF was established to maintain calm along the border between Egypt and Israel following the Israeli-British-French invasion of Egypt in 1956. Israel declined the stationing of UN troops on its soil, while Egypt accepted them. Egypt held the right to request their withdrawal at any point.

UN Secretary General U Thant, backed by the United States and Canada, responded to Egypt's lawful request by suggesting that UNEF be repositioned on the Israeli side of the border. This proposal to head off the growing threat of war was rejected by Israel. Israel also rejected U Thant's proposal to reinvigorate the Egyptian-Israeli Mixed Armistice Commission, an idea backed by Nasser. Additionally, the Egyptian president backed U Thant's proposal of a two-week moratorium on belligerent actions in the Straits and the appointment of a special UN representative to mediate between the two parties. Israel rejected both ideas.

(top)

9. Where were Egypt's troops on the day preceding the war?

Egyptian documents indicate that its troops were in a defensive posture in the Sinai and along the Suez Canal. Additionally, vital troops for any offensive remained in Yemen. Two Egyptian commando battalions joined Jordanian forces in the West Bank on June 3.

(top)

10. What role, if any, did the United States play in the diplomatic efforts to avert armed conflict?

In the weeks preceding the war, the United States repeatedly warned Israel not to take unilateral action, and insisted on a diplomatic resolution to the developing conflict. The United States was urgently working diplomatic channels alongside UN Secretary General U Thant, attempting to avert war. The Egyptian vice-president was scheduled to meet with U.S. officials in Washington in early June. Two days before his visit, however, Israel struck. U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk said the United States was "shocked and angry as hell." (vi)

(top)

11. What were the consequences of the 1967 war for Palestinians?

Palestinians suddenly faced the military occupation and settlement of their land. With the occupation came a dual system of law: one for Israeli settlers and one for Palestinians.

The overwhelming military defeat of the Arab states also led Palestinians to conclude that their liberation would not be effectuated by the Arab states, but would have to be of their own making. This determination led to Palestinian resistance and significant outreach to the international community for political and economic support.

Eventually, Israel's occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip became the primary focus of the Palestinian national movement, and other issues - such as the status of the Palestinian refugees from 1948, and the position of Palestinian citizens of Israel as an oppressed minority - were largely occluded.

(top)

12. What is the legal status of the land Israel seized in 1967?

Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula pursuant to the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty concluded in 1979. Under international law, the other territories Israel seized in 1967 remain "occupied", and Israel is their "belligerent occupier." (vii)

Israeli officials have often referred to the Arab territories it holds as "administered," or "disputed," arguing that unsettled claims of sovereignty to the West Bank and Gaza Strip free Israel of its obligations as an occupier under international law. That position has failed to find support in the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly, the International Court of Justice, the International Committee of the Red Cross or the Israeli High Court.

Israel evacuated its colonies from the Gaza Strip in 2005. Nonetheless, the Gaza Strip also remains occupied as Israel continues to maintain effective control over the region. Palestinians continue to require Israeli consent to (1) travel to and from the Gaza Strip from the West Bank; (2) take their goods to foreign and Palestinian markets and (3) obtain goods from Palestinian, Israeli and foreign markets. Israel also continues to maintain military control over Palestinian territorial waters and Palestinian airspace, while reserving for itself freedom of military operations in the Gaza Strip.

(top)

13. What were the long-term implications of the war for peace and stability in the region, and for the status of international law?

International humanitarian law requires that belligerent occupiers protect the health, welfare and homes of the occupied civilian population. It also prohibits deportation of those living under occupation and the transfer of the occupier's own civilian population into the occupied territory. Israel has, for forty years, violated international law through its demolition of Palestinian homes, its deportation of thousands of Palestinians, its killing of Palestinians and its construction of Israeli-only colonies and roads. Though the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly and the International Court of Justice have repeatedly criticized Israel's violations of international law, no effective action has been taken to halt the violations.

The UN Security Council issued its opinion on Israel's actions in the following terms:

The repeated violation by Israel, the occupying Power, of international law and its failure to comply with relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions and agreements reached between the parties undermine the Middle East peace process and constitute a threat to international security (ES/10/2 22 April 1997).

International law draws its strength from universal application and enforcement according to uniform standards. The failure of the international community to enforce international law with respect to Israel's occupation of Arab territories has weakened the United Nations and undermined international legality.

(top)

Footnotes:
i Le Monde, February 29, 1968, p. 4.
ii Le Monde, June 3, 1972, p. 4.
iii "Excerpts from Begin Speech at National Defense College," The New York Times, August 11, 1982, p. A6.
iv Michael Oren, Six Days of War, 2003, p. 35.
v "Excerpts from Begin Speech at National Defense College," The New York Times, August 11,1982, p. A6.
vi Dean Rusk, As I Saw It, 1990, p. 386-387.
vii Under international law (Article 42 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907), territory is considered occupied if it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. A "belligerent occupier" is one that has occupied territories outside its own borders during war, whether aggressive or defensive.

Originally published by Institute for Middle East Understanding.

Related posts:

• Arabisc: Sunni, Shia’, Peace, War, Israel, Palestine and Lebanon!
• Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2006
• Uniting For The Return of Palestinians

Sorry, but these guys seems to be living on a different planet. Less than a week ago, they spilled their poison on Jordan. Jordanian government spokesman Nasser Judeh replied:

On Human Rights Watch (HRW) report, Judeh was surprised to hear the HRW asks Jordan to consider thousands of Iraqis as refugees, noting the Agency that concerns with refugees is Higher Commission for Refugees, which can classify the refugee. He indicated that HRW claimed that Jordan puts restriction on visas for Iraqis, the Iraqis, Judeh remarked, basically don’t need visa to enter Jordan but rather they need residence. He elucidated that the information HRW has got is inaccurate and its report is false.

Now, it is the turn of Palestinian people under occupation. The almighty HRW are saying that Palestinian Human Shields are illegal and "Civilians Must Not Be Used to Shield Homes Against Military Attacks." Who said they should? HRW missed the point that Palestinians voluntary went out in the middle of the night to protect their brothers, sisters, neighbors and loved ones, because people like HRW are sitting in their cozy chairs watching Palestinians massacred by the Zionist; doing nothing but writing reports to collect dust!

Here is what International Solidarity Movement replied:

Nonviolent Resistance is not Illegal: HRW Should Retract Statement

On Sunday, Nov. 19, hundreds of Palestinian civilians crowded into the building where the family of Mohammed Baroud and a number of other families live in Jabalya refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. Israeli military forces had warned that the building would be attacked. The planned Israeli attack was deterred by this action. Two hours later, the scene was replicated at the family home of Mohammed Nawajeh, with the same results.

The International Solidarity Movement (ISM) applauds the people of Jabalya for their courageous and effective use of nonviolent resistance, and we express our full solidarity with their actions, which are positive initiatives in the struggle to defend Palestinian rights. We encourage international volunteers to participate in these actions, as did Father Peter Dougherty and Sister Mary Ellen Gundeck of the Michigan Peace Team.

We note with disappointment that Human Rights Watch (HRW) chose to condemn these actions, suggesting that they could constitute a "war crime." In a November 22, 2006 press release entitled, "OPT: Civilians Must Not Be Used to Shield Homes Against Military Attacks" HRW Middle East Director Sarah Leah Whitson said, "There is no excuse for calling civilians to the scene of a planned attack. Whether or not the home is a legitimate military target, knowingly asking civilians to stand in harm's way is unlawful."

HRW's press release is factually, legally, and morally flawed.

HRW based its statement on contested factual information. HRW claimed that "Palestinian armed groups" and Mohammed Baroud encouraged civilians to gather around the homes. However, while some press accounts mention Baroud's role, numerous other press and participant accounts from Gaza suggest that the mobilizations resulted from calls by civilian leaders and a groundswell of popular anger against Israeli home demolitions.

As just one example, Eyad Bayary, a head nurse at Jabalya Hospital who went to Baroud's home with another twenty of his neighbors, told ISM that he did not hear a call from Baroud asking people to protect his home. He and his neighbors went to support Baroud and his family and to protest the shelling out of their own volition. "I live next to Mr. Baroud's family home. If his home is shelled at best my home would be damaged. My wife is in the six month of her pregnancy. God forbid, a shelling of the house next door could endanger her and the child she is carrying. All our children would be affected. We went to the Baroud family house because we were scared and angry. No one asked us to come."

In addition to this factual weakness, we believe that HRW's position reflects serious errors in the interpretation and application of international humanitarian law (IHL), in two fundamental respects: (1) HRW's position explicitly rejects considering the legitimacy of the target as relevant to the legal analysis; and (2) HRW's position erroneously places the burden of protecting civilian lives on the population being attacked instead of on the belligerents carrying out the attack.

Continue...

According to HRW, "In the case where the object of attack is not a legitimate military target, calling civilians to the scene would still contravene the international humanitarian law imperative for parties to the conflict to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians from the effects of attack." IHL clearly makes target legitimacy central to the determination of lawful vs. unlawful conduct. Protocol I of the Geneva Convention, Article 51(7) provides that "Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations." Article 52 of the same Protocol makes clear that a civilian home is a civilian object and not a military objective. Even if Mohammed Baroud and Mohammed Nawajeh are military commanders, their families, their family homes and the homes of other families in the same buildings are not military objectives.

Therefore, the Geneva Convention's prohibition on the use of civilians to shield military objectives does not apply to the voluntary gathering of Palestinian civilians to protect civilian objects like the homes of Baroud and Nawajeh from a pending Israeli attack. Rather, Israel's targeting of these homes constitutes a violation of numerous provisions of IHL that proscribe attacks on civilian property, and of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, strictly prohibiting the destruction of property for the purpose of collective punishment.

While IHL places obligations on all parties to a conflict to take "all feasible precautions" to protect civilians from the effects of attack, HRW does not cite support for its claim that encouraging civilians to defend their homes from military strikes constitutes a violation of this imperative. In fact, Protocol I, Article 57 relating to precautions in attack, specifically places the obligation to protect civilians on "those who plan or decide upon an attack." (Protocol I, Art. 57(2)(a)). Furthermore, providing warning does not absolve Israel of its responsibility not to attack civilian objects, nor does it make the civilian objects legitimate military targets.

The error of HRW's interpretation of IHL is even more obvious when we consider that HRW statements like "Civilians Must Not Be Used to Shield Homes Against Military Attacks" and "knowingly asking civilians to stand in harm's way is unlawful" would proscribe many completely legitimate forms of nonviolent resistance in occupied peoples' struggles. The Fourth Geneva Convention and its Additional Protocols were never intended to permit an aggressor to choose his targets at will, while putting the onus on the civilian victims to get out of the way. Nor were these laws created to prevent civilians from exercising their right to defend their property.

The condemnation of nonviolent efforts by civilians to prevent the destruction of civilian homes also represents a failure of moral judgment on the part of HRW. To condemn nonviolent actions in this way is to confuse civil resistance with the forcible use of "human shields" by military combatants, such as those documented by the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem in its November, 2002 report "Human Shield". The report describes Israeli military seizures of Palestinian civilians, forcing them to walk in front of soldiers and sometimes placing them on the hoods of their vehicles to deter attacks against their military personnel. These Israeli military actions are clearly war crimes (though HRW failed to label them as such in its April, 2002 report, "In a Dark Hour: The Use of Civilians during IDF Arrest Operations"). It is a mistake to extend this principle to the courageous voluntary participation of unarmed individuals in mass nonviolent actions in defense of their human rights.

By condemning nonviolent civilian resistance in this way, HRW endangers those practicing it, and undermines the work of other human rights groups and the credibility of HRW itself. ISM calls upon HRW to retract its November 22 press release and to recognize the courage and the legitimacy of the actions of the Palestinian community in Jabalya.

Related posts:

• Israeli defense minister wants ‘human shields’ ban overturned
• Inaccurate ‘human rights’ teaching in Jordan schools
• Promote Human Rights of Palestinian Arab Citizens of Israel

In the fifth annual Reporters Without Borders Worldwide Press Freedom Index, in between 168 indexed countries, our beloved Arab countries makes sure to be among the worst.

Here is the list in order from "best" to "worst":

Kuwait - 73
United Arab Emirates - 77
Mauritania - 77
Qatar - 80
Morocco - 97
Lebanon - 107
Jordan - 109
Bahrain - 111
Algeria - 126
Egypt - 133
Palestine - 134
Sudan - 139
Tunisia - 148
Yemen - 149
Libya - 152
Iraq -154
Syria - 153
Saudi Arabia - 161
Oman - ?

Yemen (149th) slipped four places, mainly because of the arrest of several journalists and closure of newspapers that reprinted the cartoons. Journalists were harassed for the same reason in Algeria (126th), Jordan (109th), Indonesia (103rd) and India (105th).

But except for Yemen and Saudi Arabia (161st), all the Arab peninsula countries considerably improved their rank. Kuwait (73rd) kept its place at the top of the group, just ahead of the United Arab Emirates (77th) and Qatar (80th).

[...]

Lebanon has fallen from 56th to 107th place in five years, as the country’s media continues to suffer from the region’s poisonous political atmosphere, with a series of bomb attacks in 2005 and Israeli military attacks this year. The Lebanese media - some of the freest and most experienced in the Arab world - desperately need peace and guarantees of security. The inability of the Palestinian Authority (134th) to maintain stability in its territories and the behaviour of Israel (135th) outside its borders seriously threaten freedom of expression in the Middle East.

Reporters Without Borders compiled the Index by asking the 14 freedom of expression organisations that are its partners worldwide, its network of 130 correspondents, as well as journalists, researchers, jurists and human rights activists, to answer 50 questions about press freedom in their countries. The Index covers 168 nations. Others were not included for lack of data about them.

- Questionnaire for compiling a 2006 world press freedom index
- How the index was compiled

Evaluation of Middle East can be found here (and Middle East Index - PDF).

Related posts:

• Press Freedom in the Middle East
• Can SESAME become an oasis of peace in the Middle East?
• Arab Discriminates Against Women. Why Is That So?

And for those wondering, this is one of the most humble places in Amman, yet one of the most crowded places. The food in front of the Royal family is one of the traditional and cheapest in Levant countries; Ful, Hum'mus and Falafel. Yet, I don't think that a week goes by without most (if not all) Levantine have one or all of these dishes!

Bon appetit!

Source: Unknown, but I found the same at Jordan Times, although there web site seems to be down (which is nothing new!) But Yahoo has a cached copy of the picture!

Related posts:

• As the Arabs see the Jews – by His Majesty King Abdullah
• Jordan Crwon Prince Hamza, Out
• Miss Seamiline Beauty Queen

Exhausted? Fainted? Day dreaming? Crying? Whatever...

NAM diplomats hammer out policy to counter America!?

Related posts:

• Coffin Counter
• MTC’rs at work
• Hollywood Zombie!

This is a letter sent from two FOX news producers in Amman, Jordan to FOX news:

Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006

Dear All,

We would like to announce our resignation from Fox News in Amman. Although we never actually worked for your organization, we helped for the past three years in facilitating your work in the Middle East.

We base our decision on moral issues. We can no longer work with a news organization that claims to be fair and balanced when you are so far from that. Not only are you an instrument of the Bush White House, and Israeli propaganda, you are war mongers with no sense of decency, nor professionalism. You have crossed all borders and red lines. An Arab mother cries over the death of her child very much like an American and Israeli mother.

Arab blood is not cheap, and we are not barbarians. You ought to be more responsible and have more decency when you take one side against the other. You have a role to play and a responsibility to shoulder for the sake of your very naive viewers.

Throughout the three years we worked with you, and helped you, we thought you would develop a degree of respect to people in this part of the world. But the disdain and blatant one-sided coverage of all Mideast conflicts only highlights your total lack of humanity and bias toward Israel. Your lack of professionalism has made you a tool of ridicule throughout the world. Your inexperienced anchors with their racist comments are not only a shameful scar on the American Media, they simply represent state run Television networks in countries you despise in the Middle East.

Finally, our decision again is based on moral and professional basis and from now on we will no longer help in any Fox related matters.

Serene Sabbagh
Jomana Karadsheh

Need I say more?

Hat tip for the courage of Serene and Jomana. This is the national spirit in the Arab world; sacrificing a career rather than working for a pro-Terrorist and a racist organization like Fox News.

Related posts:

• Yahoo Adds Blog News to Yahoo News Search
• News Illusion
• Saudi control on Fox News Coverage?