New evidence in the Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie is clearing the name of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, who was convicted and sentenced during the Camp Zeist Trial. As many intelligence experts have suggested for years, the evidence is leading towards persons in Germany, with ties to the Palestinian Front For the Liberation of Palestine – General Command, PFLP-GC. Why is it, that the new evidence is produced now, at a time, where the USA, EU, and NATO have installed the TNC in Tripoli, and have initiated an armed insurgency into Syria in preparation of NATO's neo-colonial ambitions in Northern Africa and the Middle East.

Professor Ludwig De Braeckeleer is in a recent article drawing attention to the fact that a key witness in the Lockerbie Trial, that led to the sentencing and imprisonment of Megrahi, who reportedly is on his death-bed in Tripoli, has committed perjury. According to De Braeckeler, he received a copy of a German Affidavit from Edwin Bollier, head of the Zürich based MeBo AG. During the Lockerbie investigations, Bollier admitted that he has sold several timers of the type that was used in bringing down Pan Am 103 to East Germany and that he had ties to several intelligence services, including Libyan intelligence and the CIA. According to Professor De Braeckeler, who received a copy of the document, it is legitimate. The document is dated 18 July 2007 and signed by Lumpert, who has been employed as electronic engineer at MeBo from 1978 to 1994. Witness No. 550, Lumpert, was a key witness at the Lockerbie Trial at Camp Zeist, where a panel of three judges sentenced the Libyan national Megrahi for the murder of the 270 persons who tragically perished. While Lumpert testified during the trial, that out of the three hand-made prototypes of the MST-13 timer, the third was broken, and that he had personally thrown it away, the copy of the affidavit in possession of Professor De Braeckeler, signed by Lumpert reads: " I confirm today on July 18th 2007, that I stole the third hand-manufactured MST-13 Timer PC-Board consisting of 8 layers of fiberglass from MEBO Ltd. and gave it without permission on June 22nd 1989 to a person officially investigating in the Lockerbie case" Lumpert also writes that the identity of that official, involved in the investigation is known. The affidavit is certified by Notarius Publicus Walter Wienland.

In the affidavit Lumpert admits to having committed perjury during the trial and states his regrets for the consequences of his silence for Libyan Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, who was innocently sentenced to life imprisonment, and who is currently on his deathbed in a prison in Tripoli.

The new development is adding fuel to a growing campaign for Justice for Megrahi which is led by Professor Robert Black QC, Mr. Robert Forrester, Father Pat Keegans, Dr. Morag Kerr, and others, and which is supported by countless other prominent members of society. The Campaign is asking for the release of the ailing Abdelbaset Al Megrahi. The affidavit by Lumpert, and his admission to having committed perjury is casting overwhelming doubt over the official narrative about the Pan Am 103 bombing, and is widely perceived as grounds for the immediate release of the ailing Megrahi from prison.

The official narrative about the finding of the remains of the timer circuit was riddled with contradictions and doubtful from the onset of the investigations. Some accounts stated that lovers found the remains of the timer board, other that is was picked up by a man walking his dog, and yet others report that it was picked up by a Police Officer who was combing the ground while on his knees. Finally, at the trial, a version that DC Gilchrist and DC McColm found it during a line search near Newcastleton became the "officially recognized narrative". The timer board remains were then labeled PI/995, and later 168.

Reconstruction of Loaded Radio

According to media reports in the UK, a retired Scottish Police Chief of Assistant Chief Constable or higher rank, the evidence was planted by CIA operatives. The statements by the retired Scottish Police Chief confirmed previously made statements by an anonymous former CIA agent who became known under the code name "Golfer" who reportedly had received statements from Gilchrist that he had not been responsible for changing the label on the evidence. The testimony of the Police Chief and CIA Agent "Golfer" are concurrent with other signs of manipulation of evidence such as inconsistencies in reported time, a new page no 51 inserted into the evidence, and other signs of manipulation of evidence.

During the investigation, Lockerbie Trial witnesses Dr. Thomas Hayes and Allan Fereday were employed at the forensic Laboratory of the British Defence Evaluation and Research Agency DERA, out of Ft Halstead. Dr. Hayes testified that he extracted the fragment of the MST-13 timer board on 12 May 1989, and that it was green. However, the circuit board that supposedly was stolen by Lumpert at MeBo was brown. Besides this, there were inconsistencies and evidence of manipulation, like hand written re-numbering of pages in evidence files about the circuit board. However, and opposed to any logical reasoning, the judges at Camp Zeist came to the conclusion that " pagination was not materially, because each item that was examined had the date of examination incorporated into the notes". The index number that Dr. Hayes assigned to the timer fragment is higher than evidence numbers designated by him three months later.

Feraday, also employed at the DERA, which has one of the most well equipped and funded forensic laboratories in the U.K. if not in Western Europe, sent a Polaroid photo of the fragment that was attached to a memorandum into evidence on 18 September 1989. The Polaroid was the entire forensic work done by Feraday up to that date. Asked why this was so, Dr Hayes replied that the proper person to ask would be Mr. Feraday. Feraday however, had retired at the age of 43, a short time after his "discovery" of the timer fragment. Feraday was never asked to explain. The use of Feraday as expert witness in the field of electronics has puzzled many legal experts. Feraday has no Scientific Education or other qualification as a Scientist. Feraday should not have been allowed to be involved in the Lockerbie case. His early retirement may partly be based on the fact that after "he had done his contribution", his further presence would have cast serious doubts that would have been difficult to cover up.

The case of the framing of Megrahi by falsified or planted forensic evidence was not the first contribution of Dr. Hayes to sentencing innocent people. The Maguire Sevenwho were sentenced and imprisoned in British prisons, where they reportedly have been subject to torture, were convicted on forensic evidence handled by Dr. Hayes. In the case of Megrahi, Dr. Hayes didn´t even perform a standard test for traces of explosives on the timer board fragment. The most probable reason would be that had he done so, he hadn´t found any, and if so, it would have been planted too. Further more, Lumpert noted, that the Timer Fragment given into evidence at Camp Zeist never had been connected to a relay. In other words, it had never been used to explode anything, let alone Pan Am 103.

MI6 Station Chief in Washington DC Andrew Fulton appointed Head of LTBU

MI6 Station Chief in Washington DC Andrew Fulton appointed Head of LTBU

The timer fragment that was never used and brought down Pan Am 103. MST-13 Timers were produced and sold by the Swiss Meister and Bollier AG or MeBo AG. Approximately 20 machine-made 9ply green board MST 13 Timers were sold to the military in Libya. A few units of the hand-made MST-13 8ply on brown board were sold to a Research Institute in Bernard, former GDR, which was cooperating with the Ministry of State Security, MfS. Both internal and

MfS Ministerium für Staatssicherheit

However, the Libyan Scapegoats were indicted and sentenced without Bollier ever having had a chance to positively identifying the timer fragment. The reason for not allowing Bollier to see any other "evidence" than the photograph was to protect the "integrity of the evidence". Orwellian New Speech for "Covering Up Falsified Evidence". When Bollier finally could obtain a copy of an enlargement of a photograph that Thurman had presented on ABC in 1991, Bollier could clearly identify the fragment as being part of one of the timer boards that had been sold to the GDR, and positively exclude that it ever should have been sold to Libya. Moreover, Bollier could, due to the absence of any solder discern, that the timer board presented in evidence had never been used for anything, let alone triggering the bomb that plunged the passengers of Pan Am 103 to their untimely death. When Bollier finally was presented the physical evidence at the trial, rather than a Polaroid, it was so scourged that is was no longer possible to identify whether it belonged to one patch or the other. When Bollier asked for an explanation for the changes, that could only be explained by tempering with the evidence, Judge Lord Sutherland replied " request denied". The explanation for the denial ? Bollier was declared an unreliable witness.

The Judges, satisfied with the unrecognizable evidence, declared that he had been satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt, that the cause of the disaster was the explosion of an improvised explosive device and that the initiation of the explosion was triggered by use of an MST-13 Timer.

Intelligence Overkill and the recycling of a hen that lays golden eggs. In the final analysis the Lockerbie incident and trial provided extreme leverage to the CIA, MI6, and NATO Intelligence Services on Libya, forcing the Libyan Government into concessions that spelled the beginning of the Libyan disaster that is currently unfolding. The concession to stop it´s nuclear ambitions being one. The release of Al Qaeda operatives working under the supervision of the CIA and MI6, who are currently populating the newly installed puppet regime in Tripoli being another. The Libyan Government being forced to going along with the Lockerbie Trial, knowing that innocent Libyan citizens would be scapegoats for a mission far more dark, and far more ties to the deep state in the USA, than anyone would like to belief. While it is absolutely essential that an innocent prisoners like Megrahi, who is on his deathbed in a prison in Tripoli be released immediately, the timing of the sudden appearance of new evidence, the timing of Lumpert`s sudden moral regrets over having contributed to the imprisonment of an innocent man, the timing of the sudden appearance of Lumpert´s affidavit that clears Megrahi´s name, and the sudden attention for the Megrahi case by former CIA Operatives and Assets, and especially the sudden attention given to the case by Western Corporate Media, seems everything but coincidental.

Ahmad Jibril Founder of the PFLP-GC

Former CIA Operatives statements, like the one by Robert Baer, speculating about the long-standing ties of the PFLP-GC with GDR and former USSR intelligence services, and "speculations" that the MST-13 Timers "could have" been passed on from Eastern European Intelligence Services to the PFLP-GC and their being picked up by corporate Western Media, are falling into a context of a Middle Eastern Operation, which planning stages date back to 1998.

The immediate manifestations of this plan for US plans to dominate Northern Africa and the Middle East, also branded as "The Arab Spring or Summer" are the regime changes in Tunisia and Egypt, and the installation of a CIA and MI6 controlled puppet regime in Libya by means of a massive aerial war under the guide of UN Resolution 1973, and a rag tack rebel army under the command of NATO Special Operation teams, which is a witches brew of Al Qaeda factions, imported Afghan Fighters from Masar e Sharif, contractors like XE – EX Blackwater, and a cohort of other elements.

NATO Special Operations Units are currently operating inside Syria. NATO bases in Turkey are used to train, arm, and provide logistics support for Muslim Brotherhood Units operating inside Syria. Saudi Lebanese multibillionaire and former P.M. of Lebanon Saad Hariri is implicated in smuggling arms into Syria that are used to destabilize the country. Both the USA and EU are imposing sanctions in an attempt to isolate Syria diplomatically, and claims that the lawfully elected President of a sovereign state, Bashar Al Assad has lost his legitimacy. US President Obama opposes the recognition of Palestine.

It is within this context, that the calls for freeing Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, while on his deathbed, in a prison cell of CIA controlled Tripoli, may very well result in him and his name being abused one more time. This time, to provide a context for military action against Syria, and this time, with consequences that could spell world-wide disaster.

* Dr. Christof Lehmann, a life time peace activist, psychologist, and advisor in behavior, finance, economics and politics.

So far, reports via Twitter claim that "people are celebrating ... still lots of gunfire ... but reports from here in Libya still unconfirmed."

Follow the tweets at #Libya - here's a sampling:

Franklin Lamb*, Tripoli, Libya | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

The 6/27/11 International Criminal Courts (ICC) arrest warrants issued for Muammar Gadhafi, his son Seif al-Islam Gadhafi, and Libya intelligence chief Abdullah al-Sanoussi, however pleasing to the "rebels" and NATO, probably won't have much effect on negotiating a settlement between the two camps and certainly the warrants will not facilitate a voluntary regime change. Quite likely, the warrants effects will tend toward the obverse, with the Libyan government ignoring, but ridiculing the much criticized ICC and pointing out its historical pattern of targeting African leaders. At Tripoli's Rixos Nasser Hotel, just a few hours after the arrest warrants were announced, Libya's Justice Minister and a high ranking Foreign Affairs official did just that and then refused to take any questions from the large gathering of western journalists of whom Libya is distrustful of, given a spate of recent false main stream media reports that have been exposed as hoaxes.

Colonel Qaddafi and his supporters, in a series of what this observer refers to as "Hezbollah style free give and take dialogue sessions" are making it very plain that they will prevail in re-unifying Libya and probably before Ramadan which begins, this year, in early August. They argue that the "rebels" are increasingly fighting among themselves and are losing popular support. It's an argument similar to the one the "rebels" are using to explain how their victory is all but assured, also by the end of Ramadan.

A subsequent report will also detail NATO terrorism and crimes against the civilian population that have included the 2/17 /11 to 6/27/11 bombing of 294 civilian targets, killing and wounding a total of 6,232 according to the Libyan Red Crescent Society statistics. These civilian targets include the Libyan Down's Syndrome Society, a school that provided speech therapy, handicrafts and sports sessions for disabled children, as well as Tripoli's Nassar University, homes, schools, medical facilities and food storage warehouses, bombing these sites are all outlawed by the Geneva Conventions and constitute NATO war crimes. An additional massive documentation project by international organizations is expected to be completed by July 30, 2011.

Once entering Libya from Tunisia, the roughly 115 mile drive to Tripoli currently provides a fascinating if unsettling introduction to the current situation in Tripoli. By the time I arrived at the hotel, my mouth tasted like I had sipped kerosene and my clothes reeked of the same. The reason is that the acute petroleum products shortage has meant that Tunisians and others are transporting for quick cash, whatever they can get to Tripoli to supply thousands of cars that are stranded along the roadside without fuel in their tanks. Just about every opened car trunk I observed being inspected randomly at more than 50 check points between Jerba, Tunisia and Tripoli, Libya, were jammed with full plastic fuel containers. Many apparently leak and over the past three months have left a heavy pall and stench for nearly one hundred miles. Some trucks, loaded with perhaps close to 1000 55 gallon drums of gasoline seemed quite ready to topple over from being seriously top-heavy with the center of gravity being at tire level. Bread, children's toys as well as dry and canned goods also fill many cars.

The main attitude one encounters on the streets of the old city such as Avenue Omar Muktar, and along the cornice is defiance and strong nationalist support for Libya's Revolution.

"It's our country. What choice do we have but to defend it? "is a commonly expressed sentiment. One woman asked me, "Shall I take off my white Hijab and wave it to surrender when the NATO troops come to my neighborhood or shall I wear my green scarf and fire my weapons. For sure my choice is the second!"

A Libyan businessman, who admits he has lots of free time these days, and who was educated at George Washington University, commented: "UN Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized the enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya to supposedly protect civilians from Muammar Gaddafi. The reality is that we need NATO to just declare 'mission accomplished' and then stop slaughtering our "protected" people?"

This morning during a long and exhilarating discussion with an official at the Libya People's Congress HQ in Tripoli, the General Secretary told me that more than two million of the 3.5 million Libyans over 18 years have been armed and are training to fight NATO when/if they arrive on the ground.

Virtually everyone who is asked gives assurances that "Baba (Father) Qaddafi" will not flee but will, if necessary, die defending his country. They believe he will survive even more NATO assassination attempts. More than once officials confidently stated that Qaddafi will be here after US President Obama is rejected by the American people in the 2012 election.

Support for this idea is found in the seemingly widespread support Qaddafi appears to enjoy and also certain "benefits" resulting from a certain Libyan pride in five million citizens still full of resistance after 100 days of facing 27 countries. The bombs have united the people, forced the sometimes too comfortable population to face the future even one without Baba Gaddafi; learned that the media strikes with false stories is stronger than the military assault in some respects, the exposure of several in the government who were ready to quickly sell out, with one million young people injected new blood into the 42 year old revolution, relearning that the "Arab system" i.e. Arab League is worthless, that it's the poor people of Libya who truly believe in the Revolution and are remaining loyal to it, and not to those with foreign bank accounts who NATO and the US were able to quickly threaten and pressure to defect. The confidence that the peoples arms and their self-confidence will ultimately win this attempted occupation, the "rebels" have exposed the Muslim Brotherhood as a US partner and also has shown the true nature of the Jihadists, Al Qaeda and NATO itself; that the African Union has a key function to perform, that Libya is not divisible because of its social and economic interdependency; the realization that Libya must reform and reject the IMF system and learn from its mistakes in trusting the US and certain countries in 2002 when it gave up certain weapons systems and placed billions of dollars in American banks; a return to peoples capitalism, not government capitalism, and the need to become more self-reliant. In addition, due to the crisis, Women have stepped forward and are surprising many by "taking charge" of many governmental functions and encouraging the population to defend their country. The youth of the country are following many much like themselves across the Middle East and are getting involved not just in defending their country but also in working on reforms, including the drafting of a Constitution in a convention being held in Tripoli next week. Libyans are saying that they have to rejuvenate their revolution and rely on themselves. Nearly everyone is claiming that Libya was deceived in the 2004 negotiations and agreement with the US and Western countries. They admit that they have paid a big price in terms of lives lost and infrastructure damage.

Libya also intends to continue their gold based currency project and continue improving relations with African countries. Libya's squeezing the former French colonial power out of most of Africa is one motive of that country to seek regime change.

Regime Change?

President Obama is likely to be defeated in 2012 according to former Bush advisor, Karl Rove and a swelling number of US political pundits. The US economy is very weak and unlikely to experience a significant recovery by Election Day. Key voter groups are rejecting Obama partly because of his war of choice in Libya which is seen as a bad strategic decision with NATO's actions increasingly becoming a deadly farce with his justification increasingly ridiculed and the cost now more than 500 billion USD.

In addition, the unemployment is approaching 10% with close to 14 million Americans out of work with half of them having been without work for more than six months. They remember that Obama promised much better, declaring that his February 2009 stimulus would cause unemployment to peak at 8% by the end of summer 2009 and drop to roughly 6.8% today.

Gallup has reported Obama's job approval rating this week at 45%, down from 67% at his inaugural. Among the groups showing a larger-than-average decline since 2009 are whites (down 25 points); older voters (down 24); independents and college graduates (both down 23), those with a high-school education or less, men, and Southerners (all down 22); women (down 21 points); married couples and those making $2,000-$4,000 a month (down 20). This all points to severe trouble in suburbs and mid-sized cities in states likes Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Nevada.

Moreover, approval among younger voters has dropped 22 points, and it's dropped 20 points among Latinos. Even African-American voters are less excited about Mr. Obama than they were and many deeply oppose his policies, and he tends to be weakest on issues voters consider most important. In the June 13 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 56% disapprove of Mr. Obama's handling of the economy. Fifty-nine percent in the Economist/YouGov poll of June 14 disapprove of how he's dealt with the deficit.

The White House is reportedly becoming reconciled to the fact that Qaddafi may remain in the Libyan leadership.

Whether Obama will be re-elected is increasingly uncertain.

Gaddafi has survived assaults of various types from US Presidents' Ford, Carter, Reagan, George Bush 1, Clinton, George Bush 2, and Obama. Vegas book makers are giving odds he'll be the leader of Libya's Fatah Revolution after the voters retire Obama, whose broken promises included telling them that the US would be involved in Libya for days, not months.

* Franklin Lamb is doing research in Libya. He is reachable c\o fplamb@gmail.com

Britain faces no serious threat, yet keeps waging war. While big defence exists, glory-hungry politicians will use it

By Simon Jenkins*

NATO airstrike in Tripoli, Libya. AP

Last week we got a glimpse of an answer and it was not nice. The outgoing US defence secretary, Robert Gates, berated Europe's "failure of political will" in not maintaining defence spending. He said Nato had declined into a "two-tier alliance" between those willing to wage war and those "who specialise in 'soft' humanitarian, development, peacekeeping and talking tasks". Peace, he implied, is for wimps. Real men buy bombs, and drop them.

This call was echoed by Nato's chief, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who pointed out how unfair it was that US defence investment represented 75% of the Nato defence expenditure, where once it was only half. Having been forced to extend his war on Libya by another three months, Rasmussen wanted to see Europe's governments come up with more money, and no nonsense about recession. Defence to him is measured not in security but in spending.

The call was repeated back home by the navy chief, Sir Mark Stanhope. He had to be "dressed down" by the prime minister, David Cameron, for warning that an extended war in Libya would mean "challenging decisions about priorities". Sailors never talk straight: he meant more ships. The navy has used so many of its £500,000 Tomahawk missiles trying to hit Colonel Gaddafi (and missing) over the past month that it needs money for more. In a clearly co-ordinated lobby, the head of the RAF also demanded "a significant uplift in spending after 2015, if the service is to meet its commitments". It, of course, defines its commitments itself.

Libya has cost Britain £100m so far, and rising. But Iraq and the Afghan war are costing America $3bn a week, and there is scarcely an industry, or a state, in the country that does not see some of this money. These wars show no signs of being ended, let alone won. But to the defence lobby what matters is the money. It sustains combat by constantly promising success and inducing politicians and journalists to see "more enemy dead", "a glimmer of hope" and "a corner about to be turned".

Victory will come, but only if politicians spend more money on "a surge". Soldiers are like firefighters, demanding extra to fight fires. They will fight all right, but if you want victory that is overtime.

On Wednesday the Russian ambassador to Nato warned that Britain and France were "being dragged more and more into the eventuality of a land-based operation in Libya". This is what the defence lobby wants institutionally, even if it may appal the generals. In the 1980s Russia watched the same process in Afghanistan, where it took a dictator, Mikhail Gorbachev, to face down the Red Army and demand withdrawal. The west has no Gorbachev in Afghanistan at the moment. Nato's Rasmussen says he "could not envisage" a land war in Libya, since the UN would take over if Gaddafi were toppled. He must know this is nonsense. But then he said Nato would only enforce a no-fly zone in Libya. He achieved that weeks ago, but is still bombing.

It is not democracy that keeps western nations at war, but armies and the interests now massed behind them. The greatest speech about modern defence was made in 1961 by the US president Eisenhower. He was no leftwinger, but a former general and conservative Republican. Looking back over his time in office, his farewell message to America was a simple warning against the "disastrous rise of misplaced power" of a military-industrial complex with "unwarranted influence on government". A burgeoning defence establishment, backed by large corporate interests, would one day employ so many people as to corrupt the political system. (His original draft even referred to a "military-industrial-congressional complex".) This lobby, said Eisenhower, could become so huge as to "endanger our liberties and democratic processes".

I wonder what Eisenhower would make of today's US, with a military grown from 3.5 million people to 5 million. The western nations face less of a threat to their integrity and security than ever in history, yet their defence industries cry for ever more money and ever more things to do. The cold war strategist, George Kennan, wrote prophetically: "Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial complex would have to remain, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented."

The devil makes work for idle hands, especially if they are well financed. Britain's former special envoy to Kabul, Sherard Cowper-Coles, echoed Kennan last week in claiming that the army's keenness to fight in Helmand was self-interested. "It's use them or lose them, Sherard," he was told by the then chief of the general staff, Sir Richard Dannatt. Cowper-Coles has now gone off to work for an arms manufacturer.

There is no strategic defence justification for the US spending 5.5% of its gross domestic product on defence or Britain 2.5%, or for the Nato "target" of 2%.

These figures merely formalise existing commitments and interests. At the end of the cold war soldiers assiduously invented new conflicts for themselves and their suppliers, variously wars on terror, drugs, piracy, internet espionage and man's general inhumanity to man. None yields victory, but all need equipment. The war on terror fulfilled all Eisenhower's fears, as America sank into a swamp of kidnapping, torture and imprisonment without trial.

The belligerent posture of the US and Britain towards the Muslim world has fostered antagonism and moderate threats in response. The bombing of extremist targets in Pakistan is an invitation for terrorists to attack us, and then a need for defence against such attack. Meanwhile, the opportunity cost of appeasing the complex is astronomical. Eisenhower remarked that "every gun that is made is a theft from those who hunger" – a bomber is two power stations and a hospital not built. Likewise, each Tomahawk Cameron drops on Tripoli destroys not just a Gaddafi bunker (are there any left?), but a hospital ward and a classroom in Britain.

As long as "big defence" exists it will entice glory-hungry politicians to use it. It is a return to the hundred years war, when militaristic barons and knights had a stranglehold on the monarch, and no other purpose in life than to fight. To deliver victory they demanded ever more taxes for weapons, and when they had ever more weapons they promised ever grander victories. This is exactly how Britain's defence ministry ran out of budgetary control under Labour.

There is one piece of good news. Nato has long outlived its purpose, now justifying its existence only by how much it induces its members to spend, and how many wars irrelevant to its purpose it finds to fight. Yet still it does not spend enough for the US defence secretary. In his anger, Gates threatened that "future US leaders ... may not consider the return on America's investment in Nato worth the cost". Is that a threat or a promise?

* Simon Jenkins is a journalist and author. He writes for the Guardian as well as broadcasting for the BBC. He has edited the Times and the London Evening Standard.

Source: Guardian

Video link: http://youtu.be/F-CZQGSti2A

In this TV ad, French international news channel France 24 is promoting Twitter's power to dislodge dictators in a dramatized manner.

The two-minute ad shows an animated Mubarak (Egypt), Ben Ali (Tunisia) and Gadaffi-like under attack by righteously blue angry birds representing freedom. The scene, of course, is an allegory for the Arab Spring, in which Twitter, Facebook and other forms of social media contributed to the ousting of rulers in Egypt and Tunisia along with civil uprisings in Libya and many other Arab countries.

By James M. Wall * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

President Obama's surprise decision to conduct an "humanitarian" effort to protect Libyans from attacks by Muammar Quaddafi, was followed by the President's swift withdrawal in favor of NATO.

This was a clear sign that Obama knew he had to combine caution with wisdom when he brought American arms into yet another Arab country.

New York Times columnist Roger Cohen was one of many media liberals who was surprised to find himself supporting the President's decision to intervene in Libya. He had not expected Obama to embrace American exceptionalism with such enthusiasm.

Cohen is not speaking of the neo-conservative self-righteous, superior exceptionalism, but of an American exceptionalism "as a transformative moral beacon to the world." Cohen figured the term itself made the president "uneasy". He explains:

And yet, and yet, this cautious president, who has been subtly talking down American power - with reason - has involved the nation in a new conflict in Libya, one in which his own defense secretary holds that the United States has no "vital interest." He has joined a long line of U.S. leaders in discovering the moral imperative indivisible from the American idea.

Michigan professor Juan Cole, another liberal who supported President Obama's air war intervention over Libya, is now equally enthusiastic over his decision to pull back in favor of NATO.

Cole's Informed Comment column on Friday points to two significant developments which suggests a political solution could be imminent in Libya: The US withdrawal from active military participation and the growing number of inner-circle defections away from Muammar Quaddafi.

The situation remains fluid, so this optimism could disappear overnight. There also remains the presence of American CIA operatives on the ground in Libya, assisting the rebel forces and helping to identify targets for the allied bombing runs. Technically, these operatives are not US military, so the US pledge to have "no boots on the ground" has not been violated.

Cole writes:

The slow, cautious war of attrition from the air against Qaddafi's forces that undertake attacks on civilians in rebel-held cities will continue. Qaddafi's closest associates are fleeing from Tripoli in terror of being held accountable for his crimes against humanity when his regime ultimately falls.

Some of these developments on Thursday drew howls of outrage from hawks such as Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, which is how you know that they are promising developments. It is better that the intervention in Libya not be branded a US one, but rather be seen as the effort of the 28 nations of NATO plus the Arab League.

Following the change in Libya, it is not too early to look northward toward Israel. Knowing of Juan Cole's support for the Palestinian struggle, it would be assumed he would be even more enthusiastic over a non-violent, second intervention in Israel and the Occupied Territories.

If Libya does stabilize, President Obama will be on a roll, all the more reason he could decide he will not need congressional backup to end Israel's irresponsible domination of the region.

Robert Burns, the Washington-based National Security Writer for the Associated Press, described the disappointment of members of Congress who had earlier supported the President's decision to engage in the air war.

"Odd," "troubling" and "unnerving" were among critical comments by senators pressing for an explanation of the announcement by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that American combat missions will end Saturday.

"Your timing is exquisite," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said sarcastically, alluding to Gadhafi's military advances this week.

Gates and Mullen, in back-to-back appearances before the House and Senate armed services committees, also forcefully argued against putting the U.S. in the role of arming or training Libyan rebel forces, while suggesting it might be a job for Arab or other countries.

We can be certain that Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu is watching to see if the Libyan intervention ends as a "success". From his perspective, "success" would be measured by its impact on Israel. Because these uprisings are a new phenomenon, Netanyahu is apprehensive about what to expect next from the Arab Spring.

Israel's greatest fear is that the Palestinian civil society within Israel, and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, will continue to expand and gain confidence.

Ramzy Baroud, editor of the Palestine Chronicle, describes what it is about the growing impact of civil society that frightens Israel's leaders.

. . .The concept of civil society is often used as a meeting point between other forces, including a healthy and fully functional state. In the Palestinian scenario, however, with the occupation, siege and regular assassinations and imprisonments of political leaders, such a state is missing.

This reality has skewed the traditional balance, resulting in a political void engineered by Israel to de-legitimize Palestinian demands and rights. It is most impressive, to say the least, that representatives of Palestinian civil society have managed to step up and fill the void.

This success would have never been possible without individuals from international civil society, including Rachel Corrie, the Turkish heroes aboard the Mavi Marmara, and the many Israeli activists and organisations who are currently being targeted by the rightwing government of Binyamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman.

Israel has shown alarm over the growing importance of civil society by reacting on many fronts. In Palestine, it has imprisoned Palestinian non-violent resisters. In Israel, it has cracked down on funds received by Israeli human rights groups. And internationally, it has pushed forward a media campaign of defamation.

Palestinian civil society will not "overthrow" the Israeli government. But Palestinians have demonstrated that they have the power to expose the aggressive Israeli policies that are so antithetical to the "moral imperative" that lies at the core of American ideals.

In September, the United Nations will consider a proposal to make the State of Palestine a UN member in full standing. The new state would include all of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. The New York Times calls this vote "a move that could place Israel into a diplomatic vise".

Why? Because Israel would be occupying land belonging to a fellow United Nations member, an ugly and brutal reality called The Occupation.

Palestinian civil society has been steadily building toward this UN vote through non-violent actions during a period when the US indulged Israel as a rich parent might indulge a spoiled child, with generous gifts of military funding and protective political cover.

The Palestinian Authority, headed by Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, has worked with international civil rights groups and governments, urging support for a Palestinian state. The PA started that process two years ago, creating its own government which will be ready to function as an independent government once it is established. This was difficult for a people living under military occupation, but the PA was persistent.

At last count, 112 members of the UN have endorsed a Palestinian state, a result achieved by the efforts of the PA, in spite of the occupation, to build a government structure which has gained the trust of the international community.

The huge advantage the Palestinians have over rebellious groups in other Arab states is that, in spite of the efforts of Israel to delegitimize the functioning government, it is a work not just in progress, but a state that is ready to stand on its own as a nation, once it is receives UN recognition.

This has been done non-violently, led by the growing strength of the "boycott, divestment and sanctions" (BDS) movement, which has given international activist groups a tangible way to support the creation of a Palestinian state. This movement began in Palestine in 2005, modeled after the successful anti-apartheid campaign in South Africa.

Israel's leaders see, and fear, this tangible non-violent resistance to the occupation. American church leaders are familiar with this fear, as anyone within the churches can testify.

The moment any church body decides to embrace BDS as a non-violent tactic, or even suggests a conversation on the issue, Israel's US supporters show up at the church's door armed with the weapons of mass destruction which always include guilt over the Holocaust and the ever present threat to play the"anti-semitic" card.

Ramzy Baroud describes Israel's response to its opposition:

Israel's actions have not been limited to de-legitimizing Palestinian rights and dismissing their existence. Israel has also worked hard to fragment any sense of political or national cohesion, through many creative means, separation walls notwithstanding.

Yet it is the Israeli occupation that is now being de-legitimized, its own government that is being isolated, and its own country's reputation that is constantly compromised. The power of civil society has indeed surpassed that of military hardware, archaic and exclusivist historical discourses, propaganda and political coercion.

The Palestinian civil society uprising is an uprising which President Obama must embrace. The President showed caution and wisdom in his limited use of force in Libya. In confronting Israel he does not need to rely on the force of arms. What he does need is the power of a non-violent movement designed to eradicate injustice.

Israel's occupation has been de-legitimized, its own government increasingly isolated, and its own country's reputation has been compromised. It is for Israel's own good that President Obama must support Palestinian civil society and bring a permanent end to Israel's illegal and immoral military occupation.

The Arab Spring is all about overthrowing the forces of oppression, wherever and in whatever form these forces exist. Israel's occupation is one of these forces of oppression. End it, Mr. President, end it peacefully.

The picture of President Obama is by Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images. It is from the Shadow Government blog on the Foreign Policy web site.

The photo of graffiti art by Banksy on the Palestinian side of Israel's separation wall, is in the East Jerusalem district of ar-Ram. The photograph is by William Parry, whose book Against the Wall: The Art of Resistance in Palestine will be published in the US by Lawrence Hill Books/Chicago Review Press this spring.

* James M. Wall is currently a Contributing Editor of The Christian Century magazine, based in Chicago, Illinois. From 1972 through 1999, he was editor and publisher of the Christian Century magazine. Jim launched personal blog April 24, 2008.

By Stuart Littlewood * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

After maintaining a deafening silence about Israel's atrocities against civilians, Britain suddenly wants a "day of reckoning" for war criminals – as long as they are Libyan.

While protestors' attempts to oust Gaddafi and his scum continued, the UK's Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, Peter Gooderham, called on the UN Human Rights Council Special Session on Libya to take whatever steps were necessary "to ensure that those responsible for the awful human rights violations that are currently occurring in Libya are held to account".

He said the Libyan government was trying to stop the world seeing what was happening, adding:

We are appalled by the levels of violence... The use of military force against civilians and the attacks on funeral processions have caused deep anger throughout the country and across the world... We join the High Commissioner in calling for an international inquiry into the violence... The United Kingdom will do everything we can to make sure those responsible in the Libyan regime are held accountable for their actions...

Foreign secretary William Hague announced he had signed a directive revoking Gaddafi's diplomatic immunity in the United Kingdom and also the diplomatic immunity of his sons, his family and his household. He spoke of Britain's readiness to provide humanitarian help. "Our Department for International Development now has teams on both borders, on the Tunisian and Egyptian borders of Libya, looking at how we can deliver such assistance if necessary."

He bragged about how the UK "drove" through a Security Council resolution referring what was happening in Libya to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. "That sends a clear message to all involved, in the regime and any other groups that if they commit crimes and atrocities there will be a day of reckoning for them."

Bravo. What a splendidly high-principled chap that Mr Hague suddenly seems to be. And how swiftly he managed to get the International Criminal Court's attention when he wanted to.

But we didn't hear Hague and his colleagues call for a reckoning with the psychopaths of the Israeli regime when they committed mega-atrocities against Gaza's civilians just two years ago. We haven't heard them driving anything constructive through the UN to halt those endless crimes. On the contrary, they're busy tinkering with our laws of universal jurisdiction to enable Zionist thugs to come and go without fear of arrest.

Gaddafi may not be welcome in London but the Foreign Office will happily roll out the red carpet for Tzipi Livni, Avigdor Lieberman, Ehud Barak and Binyamin Netanyahu, while Hague conducts the brass band.

And nobody saw the Department for International Development waiting on Gaza's borders with humanitarian help.

Where was HMS Cumberland when British nationals on the Mavi Maramra and the Dignity and other vessels were being assaulted and terrorized in international waters by Israeli pirates, abducted and thrown in their stinking jails?

Our warships HMS Cumberland and HMS York magically appear in the Mediterranean when Hague or Prime Minister David Cameron snaps his fingers. The ships have been protecting victims of the lunatic Gaddafi, and HMS York unloaded tons of medical supplies and other humanitarian aid for the Benghazi Medical Centre, donated by the Swedish government.

Funny how these two vessels couldn't be deployed to bring life-saving aid to innocent Palestinians after Israel's indiscriminate Operation Cast Lead blitzkrieg. Those same Palestinians civilians are still being bombed and strafed with impunity on a daily basis, so when the Libyan crisis dies down shouldn't HMS York be loaded up with more supplies and sail for Gaza, where the humanitarian crisis continues unabated?

On the Libya situation Hague has been sounding off with loud threats of retribution. "Crimes will not go unpunished and will not be forgotten; there will be a day of reckoning and the reach of international justice is long," he says.

He also talks of imposing a no-fly zone over Libya to protect its people. One option would involve RAF patrols from Cyprus. Hague told Sky News: "One thing we have to plan for and work out how we would do it with allies and partners if it became necessary and if it had the necessary international support."

The BBC reported that, according to Hague, a no-fly zone over Libya would not necessarily need a green light from the UN. "There have been occasions in the past when such a no-fly zone has had clear, legal, international justification even without a Security Council resolution. It depends on the situation on the ground."

Prime Minister David Cameron told MPs that he had asked the head of Britain's armed forces to work with allies to see if a military no-fly zone was possible.

So if the answer is "yes", there's no reason not to impose a no-fly zone over Gaza, is there? Oops, I forgot. The maniacs doing the murdering there are Whitehall's "friends", right? And Hague and Cameron have publicly pledged undying support for them, right? So, their balls are in a vice, right?

Even 1,400 dead, the vast majority civilians including 350 children, is not slaughter enough to wrench them free – the thousands maimed and the tens of thousands homeless not enough cruelty.

As for freedom and democracy in the Middle East, spare us the sermon. The British government has pissed on Palestinian democracy since 2006 and ganged up with other bullies to spitefully punish the people for making the "wrong" choice. Britain chose (as if it was any of our business to do the choosing) to prop up the treacherous and utterly discredited election losers and stand idly by while the decades of imprisonment and suffering continue.

The Israeli newspaper the Jerusalem Post reports this week how David Cameron told Jewish dinner guests: "With me you have a prime minister whose belief in Israel is indestructible... I will always be a strong defender of the Jewish people. I will always be an advocate for the State of Israel."

He also said Israel has a right to search vessels entering Gaza. Oh? So Israeli piracy on the high seas or in Palestinian waters is OK? The blockade is OK? Does this mean vessels sailing for Israeli ports can be stopped and searched for weapons that might be used against Israel's neighbours?

Cameron also said: "Some people try to judge Israel's government by a higher code of conduct than they would apply to their own government."

And he said that when the Israeli authorities had revoked the Jerusalem residency permit of the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, a state of affairs that has dragged on for six months "without tangible results" despite efforts by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the British foreign secretary (Hague) and the British ambassador. The bishop will now have to resort to legal remedies to go about his duties.

What sort of buffoon is Cameron?

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

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

Introduction

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

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

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

The Nature of the Arab Economies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rentier Rule: By Arms and Handouts

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

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

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

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

Neo-Liberal Destabilization

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

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

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

The Street against the Palace

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

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

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

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

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

Converging Conditions and the "Demonstration Effect"

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Official US Policy: War Yes, Peace No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Breaching Libyan Sovereignty

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

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

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

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

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

Final Comments

According to Russia Today (RT) television:

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

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

On March 2, he said the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gadhafi's Cheap Shot

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

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

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

Economic Sanctions Not Likely to Sway Gadhafi

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

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

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

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

The US and UN are currently pondering an international response.

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

Cartoon by Jeremy Nell "Jerm", The New Age, South Africa

By Fidel Castro | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Oil has become the principal wealth in the hands of the great Yankee transnationals; through this energy source they had an instrument that considerably expanded their political power in the world.  It was their main weapon when they decided to easily liquidate the Cuban Revolution as soon as the first just and sovereign laws were passed in our Homeland: depriving it of oil.

Upon this energy source today’s civilization was developed.  Venezuela was the nation in this hemisphere that paid the highest price.  The United States became the lord and master of the huge oil fields that Mother Nature had bestowed upon that sister country.

At the end of the last World War, it started to extract greater amounts of oil from the oil fields of Iran, as well as those in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the Arab countries located around them.  These became the main suppliers.  World consumption progressively increased to the fabulous figure of approximately 80 million barrels a day, including those being extracted on United States territory, to which later gas, hydro and nuclear energies were added.  Until the beginning of the twentieth century, coal had been the basic source of energy that made industrial development possible, before billions of automobiles and engines consuming the liquid fuel were produced.

The squandering of oil and gas is associated with one of the greatest tragedies, not in the least resolved, which is suffered by humankind: climate change.

When our Revolution arose, Algeria, Libya and Egypt were not yet oil producers and a great part of the abundant reserves of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and the United Arab Emirates were still to be discovered.

In December of 1951, Libya becomes the first African country to attain its independence after WW II, during which its territory was the stage for important battles between the troops of Germany and the United Kingdom, conferring fame and glory on Generals Erwin Rommel and Bernard L. Montgomery.

Ninety-five percent of its territory is completely made up of desert.  Technology permitted the discovery of vital oilfields of excellent quality light oil that today reach one million 800 thousand barrels a day along with abundant deposits of natural gas.  Such riches allowed it to reach life expectancy that is almost at 75 years of age and the highest per capita income in Africa.  Its harsh desert is located over an enormous lake of fossil waters, equivalent to more than three times the land area of Cuba; this has made it possible to construct a broad network of pipelines of fresh water that stretch from one end of the country to the other.

Libya, which had a million inhabitants when it attained independence, today has somewhat more than 6 million.

The Libyan Revolution took place in the month of September of the year 1969. Its main leader was Muammar al-Gaddafi, a soldier of Bedouin origin who, in his early years, was inspired by the ideas of the Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser.  Without any doubt, many of his decisions are associated with the changes that were produced when, as in Egypt, a weak and corrupt monarchy was overthrown in Libya.

The inhabitants of that country have age-old warrior traditions.  It is said that ancient Libyans were a part of Hannibal’s army when he was at the point of destroying Ancient Rome with the troops that crossed the Alps.

One can agree with Gaddafi or not.  The world has been invaded with all kinds of news, especially using the mass media.  One has to wait the necessary length of time in order to learn precisely what is the truth and what are lies, or a mixture of events of every kind that, in the midst of chaos, were produced in Libya.  For me, what is absolutely clear is that the government of the United States is not in the least worried about peace in Libya and it will not hesitate in giving NATO the order to invade that rich country, perhaps in a matter of hours or a few short days.

Those who with perfidious intentions invented the lie that Gaddafi was headed for Venezuela, just as they did yesterday afternoon on  Sunday the 20th of February, today received an fitting response from Foreign Affairs Minister  Nicolás Maduro when he literally stated that he was “wishing that the Libyan people would find, in the exercise of their sovereignty, a peaceful solution to their difficulties, that would preserve the integrity of the Libyan people and nation, without the interference of imperialism...”

As for me, I cannot imagine that the Libyan leader would abandon his country; escaping the responsibilities he is charged with, whether or not they are partially or totally false.

An honest person shall always be against any injustice being committed against any people in the world, and the worst of all, at this moment, would be to remain silent in the face of the crime that NATO is getting ready to commit against the Libyan people.

The leadership of that war-mongering organization has to do it.  We must condemn it!

Fidel Castro Ruz

February 21, 2011
10:14 p.m.

Cartoon by Sergei Elkin

Why Europe Fears the North African Uprisings

By Behzad Yahmaian * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

While millions in the worl are celebrating the popular uprisings in North Africa, Europe is watching with skepticism and fear. The fall of the African dictators will deprive Europe of valuable allies in the fight against irregular migration. The political vacuum and the social and economic instability that follows will create a new wave of desperate migrants daring the high seas to reach the coats of Europe. This will deepen the immigration crisis Europe has been trying hard to manage in recent years. Europe is responding with an increased use of force. A new humanitarian crisis is looming.

Devastated by war and poverty, thousands of Sub-Saharan Africans have been leaving home on a torturous and long journey north every year. Arriving in Morocco, Tunisia, or Libya, they recuperate from the journey fatigue, pay human smugglers, and climb aboard flimsy boats heading to Italy or Spain. Many fall victim to high waves and deadly storms. The survivors join the army of asylum seekers, or undocumented workers in big cities across the continent.

Removing and returning the migrants to their places of origin or the last country they left before entering Europe has proven impractical. As a result, preventing the Africans from reaching Europe has become a policy priority in recent years. To block their arrival, European states have been signing bilateral agreements with North African dictators, recruiting them to guard the EU borders in return for financial assistance.

In a bilateral agreement with Zine Al-Abidine Ben Ali, Italy pledged financial support in exchange for help in preventing African transit immigrants and Tunisians from leaving for Europe. Zine Al-Abidine Ben Ali's fall ended the agreement. Border control collapsed in Tunisia and 5000 Tunisians arrived in the Italian port of Lampedusa. Although in much smaller numbers, Egyptians have been leaving their homes and heading to Italy. Egypt remains politically and economically unstable. The continuation of the situation will only increase the number of Egyptians opting for survival in Europe.

In a 2003 agreement between Spain and Morocco, Moroccan authorities pledged full cooperation in migration control in return for $390 million in aid. Two years later in September 2005, Moroccan soldiers and Spanish guards fired at hundreds of Africans trying to enter the enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla. Gun shots killed 11 migrants and injured many more. The North African protest movement has already reached the streets of Morocco. Here too, the future of the bilateral pact to stop African migration is at jeopardy.

The most notable of the bilateral agreements with North African dictators was the "Friendship Pact" signed between Italy and Libya on August 30th, 2008. The two countries pledged increase cooperation in "fighting terrorism, organized crime, drug trafficking, and illegal immigration." Muammar Gaddafi agreed to keep African migrants from leaving its frontiers for Italy, and readmit to Libya those intercepted in international waters. The price tag for this service was $5 billion Italian investment, and six patrol boats to police the waterways between Africa and Europe.

On May 6, 2009, the Italian coastguard and naval fleet interdicted a migrant boat in high seas and forcefully returned the passengers to Libya. Italy's interior minister Roberto Maroni hailed the act an "historic day" in the fight against illegal immigration. Among the passengers were vulnerable women and children, those in need of medical assistance, and those with legitimate cause for asylum and international protection. The Human Rights Watch has reported widespread abuse, physical violence, torture of returned migrants in Libya. In some cases, the Libyan authorities sold the Africans to human smugglers who kept them in private jails and released them after receiving money from their families.

The political turmoil in North Africa is also threatening the future of the "Friendship Pact." Mummar Qaddafi has threatened his unilateral cancellation of the agreement if the European governments did not stop criticizing his violent suppression of the Libyan protesters. Qaddafi's armed forces killed hundreds of protesters in recent days. Meanwhile, the anti-government protests are raging in different parts of Libya. The future of the Libyan dictator remains unclear.

On February 15th, the Italian Ministry of Interior sent a formal request for help to Frontex, the European Union's border security agency. On February 20th, Frontex launched the Joint Operation Hermes 2011 with the deployment of additional aerial and maritime assets from Italy and Malta to combat the flow of illegal immigrants from North Africa.

Muammar Gaddafi may succeed in crushing the uprising by the use of extreme force. The dictator's fall will be, however, an irrevocable blow to Europe's current migration policy. The loss of Europe's hired gun in the fight against irregular migration will lead to a more open confrontation between the EU armed guards and the African migrants in high seas. How far will Europe go to stop the African from reaching its frontiers?

* Behzad Yaghmaian is a professor of political economy at Ramapo College of New Jersey, and the author of Embracing the Infidel: Stories of Muslim Migrants on the Journey West and the forthcoming The Greatest Migration: a People’s Story of China’s March to Power. He can be reached at behzad.yaghmaian@gmail.com .

Illustration by Carlos Latuff

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

By Robert Fisk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Illustration by Carlos Latuff

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

Ghaddafi Will Go: 3 Down-19 to Go

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of Blood and Oil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bottom Line:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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).