Palestinians converge on Al-Aqsa

The movement to defend Al-Aqsa Mosque is growing locally, but the lack of international Muslim reaction to Israeli impingements is lamentable, writes Khaled Amayreh in Jerusalem

Hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Muslims have been converging on Al-Aqsa Mosque in Israeli occupied East Jerusalem in what is seen by many as a psychological challenge to Israeli claims that the town is an integral part of Israel's "eternal and undivided capital".

On Friday, 10 August, an estimated half a million worshipers were able to make it to the Haram Al-Sharif (Noble Sanctuary) esplanade. The sea of humanity came from all over the West Bank as well as Arab towns and villages across Israel. Strongly discriminated-against Palestinian Arabs make nearly one fourth of Israel's total population. No Gazans were allowed to reach the Muslim sanctuary.

The previous Friday, as many as 350,000 worshipers performed the weekly congregational prayer amid tight Israeli restrictions. Nevertheless, some young people were seen being turned back by Israeli soldiers and paramilitary policemen manning "border crossing facilities" created by the Israeli army to control Palestinian entry into the holy town.

According to a prophetic tradition, the heavenly reward of a single ritual prayer at Al-Aqsa Mosque is multiplied 500 times. But while worshipers covet the heavenly prize, they also want to reassert a Muslim presence and rights in one of the world's most hotly contested pieces of real state.

The influx of hundreds of thousands of mainly Palestinian Muslims into Jerusalem's old town generates visible consternation among Talmudic-minded Jewish circles, which would like to make the city -- and all of Palestine-Israel -- Gentile free.

Jewish millenarians believe the building of a Jewish Second Temple would herald the appearance of a Jewish Messiah, or redeemer, who would bring about redemption for Jews and salvation for mankind.

He would also create a worldwide Jewish empire, which would be ruled from Jerusalem.

Jews also believe that the appearance of the redeemer would be preceded by violence and bloodshed on a genocidal scale. Hence, fanatical Jews waste no opportunity to spark off violence in the hope of igniting a worldwide conflagration.

The influx of a huge number of Muslims into Jerusalem, especially during the month of Ramadan, also shows that the battle for Jerusalem is far from over and that many will not come to terms with unilateral Israeli measures in and around the city.

Unlike previous Ramadan seasons, the Israeli occupation authorities, while maintaining tight security, allowed greater numbers of worshipers access to the Islamic holy site, the world's third in importance. There were no restrictions on the entry of female worshipers while all male worshipers over the age of 25 were also allowed entry.

At the mosque itself, one speaker after another elaborated on the virtues and spiritual rewards of fasting during the holy month. Speakers also urged the huge multitude to pay alms and charity to the poor. Zakat or obligatory charity is the third pillar of Islam, coming directly after the declaration of faith and ritual prayer.

Speakers also urged worshipers to cling and hold fast to the Islamic shrine in the face of unrelenting Israeli efforts to arrogate a foothold for fanatical Jewish groups eyeing the building of a Jewish temple in the area.

In recent weeks, Israeli authorities hinted that Al-Aqsa esplanade might eventually be converted to a public park. Statements to that effect infuriated Muslim leaders who emphasised that the 144,000 square metres constituting Haram Al-Sharif were all an integral part of Al-Aqsa Mosque.

"Every square centimetre of this area is holy," said Sheikh Ikrema Sabri, the former head of Jerusalem's Supreme Muslim Council, which supervises and caters for Islamic holy sites.

Al-Ahram Weekly met with Sheikh Mohamed Hussein, the mufti of Jerusalem and one of the main Friday preachers -- or khatibs -- at Al-Aqsa. He said that Jewish authorities were trying to desensitise Muslims to recurrent encroachments at the revered shrine.

"After opening a network of tunnels beneath Haram Al-Sharif, they are now trying to turn the bulk of the walled area into a public park. This is of course a ruse or a trick to take over the area," said Sheikh Hussein, lamenting the weak reaction of the Muslim world.

He added: "If and when the Israeli government and fanatical Jewish groups sense a weak Muslim reaction, they interpret this as a green light to move a further step onward."

Asked what the Muslims of Palestine could do to thwart rapacious Jewish designs against Al-Aqsa Mosque, Sheikh Hussein said: "We are the Muslim world's first line of defence against Israeli ambitions in Jerusalem. We will not allow the Jewish occupiers of Palestine to arrogate even one centimetre of this exclusively Islamic place."

He added: "But we need the backing of Muslims around the world."

Last week, an Israeli lawmaker named Aryeh Eldad proposed "new arrangements" at the Haram whereby Jews would be allowed exclusive worship at the site on certain designated days.

Effectively, Eldad's call amounts to partitioning the Muslim sanctuary and transforming it into a synagogue. This, Muslim officials say, underscores the extent to which Jewish designs and ambitions have become daring and audacious, especially in the absence of any meaningful reactions from important Muslim powers, such as Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Sheikh Sabri is embittered and indignant at the "totally inadequate manner in which Muslim states react to Jewish efforts to take over Haram Al-Sharif." He says he is nearly desperate, watching Muslim states doing virtually nothing to make Israel know that any aggression against Al-Aqsa Mosque would lead to an unprecedented conflagration.

"Al-Aqsa is our faith, our life, our dignity and honour. And if Muslims were to allow fanatical Jews to usurp it, in full or in part, then the belly of the earth would be better for us than its surface."

"1948 MUSLIMS": When the Israeli occupation authorities barred Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip from entering Jerusalem following the creation of the Palestinian Authority in 1994, the burden of catering for Haram Al-Sharif was transferred to the Islamic Movement in 1948 Palestine.

Several Muslim leaders from across the Green Line have loomed large in defending Islamic holy places in Jerusalem, including Sheikh Raed Salah, whose name became synonymous with Muslim resistance against Jewish conspiracies against Haram Al-Sharif.

The Islamic Movement in 1948 Palestine, which is organising free semi-daily trips to Al-Aqsa Mosque, is closely monitoring Israeli misdeeds and designs at site.

This week, Sheikh Kamal Al-Khatib, Salah's deputy, warned Israeli authorities that any "misadventure at Al-Aqsa Mosque would lead to earth-shaking consequences for Israel and the region."

"The stars of heaven are closer to them than partitioning the Haram," Khatib was quoted as saying.

The battle for Al-Aqsa is far from over. Some say it has just begun.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Big Brother is still watching

The selection process for new national chief editors indicates that little fundamental has changed in efforts by those in power to control the media in Egypt, writes Ayman El-Amir

Regardless of the professional merits, or de-merits, of the newly-appointed editors of nearly 50 "national" Egyptian publications, the move gives clear indications that the practices of the defunct Mubarak regime still work behind the scenes. Some of the new editors may be known to some people but most of them are not known to most readers, at least professionally. This raises two questions: first, the criteria set for the selection process, especially by those who do not belong to the profession; and secondly, how will the new editors be judged when their terms expire three years from now? Will Big Brother be watching and influencing the selection on the basis of political rather than professional editorial standards?

Some of the new editors have vowed to resign their positions if any outside authority should try to interfere with their editorial policies. This, however, is more easily said than done. The prestige and, more importantly, the benefits that go with it are too precious to give up. In the equation it is easier to compromise on freedom of expression than to lose a prominent position. At least this is what experience has proven when flattering editors amassed literally hundreds of millions of pounds over two decades by rewarding themselves with a combination of salaries and a percentage of the earnings from distribution and from advertising. The controlling regime looked the other way as those editors violated every financial regulation in the book.

The Egyptian press has experienced censorship for a century, starting when the British declared Egypt a protectorate in 1912 and imposed whatever press restrictions they wanted to shield themselves from the wrath of the Egyptians. In the era of national dictatorship, following the ascendancy of Nasser, particularly after the 1961 press regulation law that nationalised the press, there were no independent newspapers to speak of and all major publications were placed under official censorship. A new formula was contrived by which ownership of the most influential national newspapers were transferred to the Arab Socialist Union in its capacity as "the alliance of the working people" -- a Soviet style free press. The president's speech on all occasions had to be accorded the front-page and published in full in the inside pages, and profusely flattered.

For people who are not familiar with this era, the censor physically sat in person in the newsroom of Al-Ahram as well as in other nationalised newspapers, reviewed and signed off on all galleys before they went to press. Shawqi Al-Kayyal, the censor, came with instructions about what cannot be published, depending on what news the wire services reported during the day. If something came up during the evening, where no prior instructions existed, he had to call his boss, Talaat Khaled, who in turn called higher ups for a decision.

Under former president Anwar El-Sadat, censorship was officially abolished, but in effect it was only finessed. It became the responsibility of editors who were anxious to keep their positions and the huge benefits they drew from them. The editor-in-chief became the censor-in-chief whose main role was to please the powers that be in return for the benefits and social status he was rewarded with. Sadat played off one editor against the other, making everyone believe, at one point or another, that he was his favourite speechwriter or political consultant. However, he tolerated no political opposition and, in 1974, did not hesitate to fire the celebrated writer of the Nasser era, Mohamed Hassanein Heikal, because he criticised Sadat's line of negotiations with former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger following the October 1973 War.

Under the Mubarak regime the game became more convoluted and less sophisticated, consistent with the nature of the regime. The Supreme Press Council was established under the appointed Shura Council. Appointment of editors, licensing of publications or revoking the licenses was placed in the hands of the Shura's Press Council. Thus, an invisible Sword of Damocles was hanging over the heads of all editors, and they behaved. However, there was no freedom of information act, new publications had to be pre-approved, free editors with critical columns were dragged to courts and channels of state television remained state-owned, state controlled. That was what a deceased press colleague, the late Salaheddin Hafez, called "the margin of free press". Sparring continued between the press and media on the one hand, and the regime on the other.

While a number of daring television programmes aired by independent channels were shut down, more privately owned newspapers were published. There is no question that some new publications and TV channel programmes trespassed on public decency, decorum and the interest of viewers. They were seeking more excitement and circulation than public service. However, equally important has been the absence of objective criteria, public education and professional responsibility of reporters and broadcasters. What was most important was to sell "hot stories" and compete with other publications/TV programmes. In the absence of rigorous professional standards, freedom of information or public education it was mostly rumour-mongering, scandals and sniping at government failure.

In this poor professional and moral environment the question of judging reporting by credibility and accuracy does not arise. The tradition in other global newspapers was credibility, which sustained or ditched a publication. A poignant case in point was the publication by USA Today of a fabricated story about torture of Iraqi suspects in Abu Ghraib detention centre in 2004. The story was filed by the newspaper's correspondent in Baghdad, Jack Kelley, who resigned from the newspaper together with the managing editor, Karen Jurgensen, after the scandal. It was not that there was a dearth of stories about the torture scandal or its victims, or that it was more shocking than the real stories documented in pictures or video-clips. It was simply fabricated and a proven fallacy that put the entire newsworthiness and credibility of the paper at stake. Both professional and public awareness soon discovered and condemned the fallacy. Despite the resignations, the two million-strong circulation newspaper of the time lost its position. Public perceptions and value judgment have become the criteria for the credibility of a publication or a news channel, replacing old political approval.

This, however, is a two-way street. State agencies and the executive branch should completely lift their control of the media. The principle should be enshrined in public law and enforced by the courts. With this goes the primary need of abolishing all laws and regulations controlling the freedom of expression, including vague stipulations such as "the legitimacy of its purposes". The authority of the Shura Council and the Supreme Press Council should be scrapped. The editorial policy of newspapers is usually defined by the owner/publisher with the guiding principle that what they publish should be in the public interest, not rumours or pornography. The decades-old notorious law of printing and publication, which is the godfather of all forms of censorship, should be eradicated. Violations by any publication or TV channel should be brought before the courts for libel or distortion.

Nothing is more representative of press censorship than the insistence on retaining the Ministry of Information -- a relic of the era of the former Soviet Union. It may be argued this is necessary for the direction and management of state-owned radio and TV channels, with their reported staff of between 30,000 and 40,000 employees. This is another leftover from the early days of the 23 July 1952 military movement. The "state" should not be running this media or have anything to do it. It is true that staff numbers, the financial burden that goes with retaining them and the billions of financial losses incurred is a major problem that no information minister has dared to tackle. But this is a political rather than a business problem. There are huge numbers of superfluous underemployed loitering in the corridors of every floor of the overcrowded radio and television building. The problem should indeed be addressed and rationalised if the financial haemorrhage is to stop.

That leaves the press and the media with the problem of establishing judging criteria that could determine which of them should survive. This is a difficult issue that requires time, education and maturity. The continuation of state-owned media -- and nearly all newspapers -- is made possible only through state subsidy with very few privately owned newspapers and TV channels bankrolled by wealthy businessmen or external Arab funds, primarily Saudi or Qatari.

Press freedom is a two-way street that has grown over the years because of government reluctance to wean them or because foreign interest sustained them for ulterior motives. Both reflect a clear desire for control. The Shura Council, hardly elected by 10 per cent of Egyptians, and its affiliated Supreme Press Council has made a selection of new editors who are mostly sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood. Self-imposed censorship is still active under a new regime that has indicated it will not tolerate opposition to religious governance.

The writer is former correspondent of Al-Ahram in Washington, DC. He also served as director of the UN Radio and Television in New York.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Khawaga Abdel-Qader: A direct message to today's hardliners

Venus Fouad looks at the irrepressible force of politics on television

In the first Ramadan after political Islamist parties came to power in Egypt, a new generation of writers and directors has been striving to bring social issues to the heart of television drama. In such television serials as Al-Baltagi (The Thug), Taraf Thaleth (Third Party) and Khorm Ebra (The Eye of the Needle), viewers are treated to a critical examination of the phenomena of violence and injustice in Egyptian society.

One serial also ventures into the unexpected with the tale of a British mystic whose philosophical views and unusual ways run in the face of everything that today's Islamists try to promulgate. This serial, Khawaga Abdel-Qader starring the popular actor Yehya El-Fakharani, is perhaps the most memorable of this year's television dramas. Written by Abdel-Rahim Kamal, the show tells the story of Herbert Gobberfield, an elderly drunk who has lost the will to live. When his work takes him to Sudan, the new experiences he encounters alter his views.

The drama begins at the time of WWII and traces Gobberfield's life through to the late 20th century, by which time he has converted to Islam and become known as Khawaga Abdel-Qader, khawaga (learned) being a title that has come to be synonymous with "foreigner".

With this role Fakharani, who starred in the hugely successful Layali Al-Helmiya (Helmiya Nights), Zizinia and Nesf Al-Rabi Al-Akhar (The Other Half of the Spring), adds to his streak of world-class performances. His character Khawaga Abdel-Qader is a kind-hearted British diplomat with an alcohol problem and a keen sense of spirituality who develops a passion for the Sufi aspects of Islam. Illuminating the contrast between Sufi spirituality and the hard-line stance of the followers of political Islam, the drama takes us into a journey of spirituality and symbolism, one in which religious chanting invokes the other-worldliness of mystic devotees.

Even the choice of the name is significant, since Abdel-Qader Al-Jilani was the grandmaster of Sufism, a man whose teachings offer the backdrop of the drama. There is an underlying call for soul-cleansing and for Muslims to rise above their petty grievances and recognise the potential for reconciliation between creed and beauty.

Fakharani's interpretation of the character is extraordinarily profound. With a modulated voice and an unstable gait, his impersonation of an ageing drunk is spot on. The makeup for his wrinkled face is masterful, and the musical score by Omar Khayrat imparts authenticity to the dramatic progression of the story.

The actors playing British roles speak in classical Arabic, which is a curious way of setting them apart from the locals and one that has been adopted in other shows. As Fakharani's character becomes more familiar with Egyptian and Sudanese customs, his accent softens into more familiar variations of colloquial speech.

This is not only an exceptional show in terms of technique and content, but it tackles philosophical and moral issues without falling into crass forms of preaching.

The character of Khawaga Abdel-Qader reminded me of the Andalusian mystic Ibn Arabi, a man whose core message was about love. At a time when hardliners are distorting this message, the show is as timely as it is enchanting.

© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Ramadan hosts slam the MB

Venus Fouad looks at the irrepressible force of politics on television

Egyptian television viewing reaches a peak in Ramadan, when the routine of the fasting regime of the Holy month brings the whole family to long, lazy evenings in front of the TV.

The Muslim Brotherhood's rise to power has put its stamp on this year's Ramadan programmes, either because of the marked rise in Islamist guests or because of the recurrent criticism of the Islamists and their policies.

Instead of the usual parade of celebrities from the art and sports worlds, the demand on politicians as guests on TV shows has increased, with many MB members and Salafi figures featuring frequently in Ramadan talk shows.

A gutsy example of this trend in programmes is Zaman El-Ekhwan (Time of the Brotherhood), presented by Lebanese host Tony Khalifah on Al-Qahira Wal Nas (Cairo and the People). The show focuses on political and social changes in Egypt while challenging their guests on matters of policy and ideology. A most exciting episode was the one with the MB general guide, who admitted that he is dreaming of an Egypt that is fully "veiled" and irrevocably "Islamist".

However, in the episode in which he featured the preacher Safwat Hegazi retracted several of his controversial statements, gravitating more towards the mainstream.

During the same programme it transpired that Michel Mounir is not the real name of the well-known Coptic activist. Fearing legal problems, some of which related to financial irregularities connected with church donations, the activist decided to invent a new identity for himself.

Khalifah often invites three people from different political backgrounds to react to the main guest. Those three, including a mix of Islamists and liberals, do not appear on camera, but they analyse the opinions of the guest and offer their take on the points raised during the discussion.

Another interesting programme is Samar Wal Regal (Samar and Men) hosted by Samar Yosri on Al-Qahira Wal Nas. The tone of the programme is so controversial that lawsuits have been filed to prevent broadcasting. Some newspapers have classified it under the "Adults Only" category owing to the sexual content of some of the questions. Samar has asked her male guests about their way of achieving "sexual satisfaction" and their reaction if they discovered that their wives were cheating on them. She once asked broadcaster Sharif Madkour to react to claims that his mannerisms and clothes were effeminate. In an episode with Amr Youssef, the actor refused to answer the question on his reaction if he discovered that his wife was not a virgin. This was particularly interesting, coming from a man who brags openly about his sexual conquests.

Yosri's programme is exceptional in that it brings to public attention the underlying contradictions of the oriental man, illustrating the manner in which the double standards of men can upset marital life.

It was refreshing when politician Amr Hamzawi said that his relationship with his second wife, the young actress Basma, is going well, adding that he still has a close friendship with his first wife, who is German. This is quite unusual since it is the pathetic custom in Egypt to scorn former spouses.

Nor does the programme does shy from debunking the Islamist ideas that the new regime is trying to enforce on Egypt. The incident involving the Salafi Member of Parliament and the duplicity of his actions may have also paved the way for this openness.

Ibrahim Wal Nas (Ibrahim and the People) is also critical of MB views. The programme offers a satirical analysis of current political events, highlighting the contradictions of the current president and government. In episodes 19 and 20, the show looked at the contradictions in the policies of President Mohamed Morsi and his government. Morsi, who has been calling for El-Ganzouri's resignation, ended up appointing him as an adviser. Morsi also declined to attend the funeral of the victims of the Rafah raid for fear of confronting public wrath, although he had claimed that he did not fear the people. The episode focusing on the sacking of the governor of Sinai was also revealing.

Amr El-Leithi's Al-Khataya Al-Sabaa (The Seven Sins), which is screened on Al-Mehwar, mirrors Khaled Salah's Al-Asila Al-Sabaa (The Seven Questions). The only difference is that Leithi focuses on repentance, goading his guests to admit to their sins in public. This, by the way, is totally opposed to the MB practice of shoving things under the carpet for fear of giving people a hint of their own humanity. The questions draw their inspiration from Dante's seven deadly sins: wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy and gluttony.

Most guests admitted to engaging in one or another of the deadly sins. The most daring was poet Ahmad Fouad Negm, who stated that sex was just as holy as praying. Negm also admitted to using drugs, specifically hashish.

In La Taragu Wala Istislam (No Retreat or Surrender), which was shown on CBC, Magdi El-Gallad interviewed such well known opposition figures as Mohamed Abu Hamed, Khaled Youssef and Samah Nour. The programme's host, and most of his guests, are clearly opposed to the MB's domination of the state apparatus.

In Korse Fil Kolob (Turning Point), shown on CBC, Lamis El-Hadidi resumes the same formula she embarked on last year. She invites celebrities and politicians to ask them about the most memorable decision of last year. The episode with Gamal Abdel-Hakim Amer, son of the 1967 army chief, was of particular interest, especially when he accused Gamal Abdel-Nasser of killing his father.

Judging by the tone of this year's Ramadan, the media is taking a great interest in much of what the Islamists say and do, but it is reserving its sympathies for the more liberal sections of society.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Planning Syria's slaughter

Far from acting to prevent terrorism, the US and UK are actively promoting it in Syria to further their own interests in the region, writes Felicity Arbuthnot

"The greatest crime since World War II has been US foreign policy" -- former US attorney-general Ramsey Clark

On 4 May 2012, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon chaired a Security Council meeting entitled "Highlighting the Changing Nature and Character of the Scourge of Terrorism". This followed a ministerial-level meeting on "threats to international peace and security posed by terrorism".

Ban's opening address underlined the importance of unity in tackling the problem. "By working together -- from strengthening law enforcement to tackling the underlying drivers of extremism -- we can greatly reduce this major threat to peace and security," he stated.

Presumably, he did not encourage permanent members of the Security Council and other UN member states in funding terrorism or "extremism", since he continued by saying that "the Security Council reiterates its strong and unequivocal condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever and where ever and for whatever purposes, [stressing] that any terrorist acts are criminal and unjustifiable regardless of their motivation."

The 13-page document further states that "the Security Council recognises the continued need to take measures to prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism and terrorist organisations and [reiterating] Member States obligations in this regard." It says that, "Member States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat of use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State," and that "the Security Council reiterates the obligation of Member States to refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or person involved in or associated with terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups."

US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said that, "the threat of terrorism continued?ê? in spite of the death of Osama bin Laden" -- a US-sponsored act of terrorism the enormity of which had apparently escaped her.

The US "condemned all terrorism" and would, she said, use all its powers, "including the power of our values?ê? to combat terrorism." It seems to have escaped her that children collecting firewood, farmers, families, youthful shepherds and goat herders and funeral and wedding parties die under US drones in their thousands in some parts of the world on orders directly from the US president.

This is death by computer games, run by "operatives" thousands of miles away. Some "values". Quite some terrorism.

Ambassador Raza Bashir Tarar, Pakistan's deputy permanent representative to the UN, said that "no country has suffered as much from terrorism as Pakistan." This is an ironic understatement, given that this US ally has been attacked, often daily, by the US.

Sir Mark Lyall Grant, representing the UK, pledged his country's support in the fight against terrorism and thanked Saudi Arabia for its efforts. Like the US and UK, the latter is allegedly backing terrorists in the sovereign nation of Syria.

Ban was also worried about rising militancy in the Sahel region of Africa. "In part because of the fallout from developments in Libya," he said. These "developments" saw widespread destruction and the lynching of a sovereign leader. Ban had apparently forgotten that the UN has vowed to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war," given the operations that have been carried out under his stewardship.

To read the whole of the UN document is to enter a world populated with people for whom reality has long since vanished.

On 3 August, the Times of India confirmed what was already an open secret: "President Obama has signed a secret order authorising US support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Al-Assad's government... Obama's order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence 'finding', permits the CIA and other US agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust President Al-Assad."

On the same day, Britain's Foreign Secretary William Hague announced, using near identical words, an increase in support for the Syrian "opposition forces", including cash to train "citizen journalists" to get the word out about government atrocities in Syria. Translation: learn convincing lies and propaganda, photoshop, and add a few film sets to stage "demonstrations" and "atrocities." Remember the Libyan ones filmed in India, to give just one example?

The UK Daily Mail quoted former British army commander Richard Kemp, a former member of the UK government's joint intelligence committee, as saying that "the UK government cannot give practical support to the rebels without a presence inside Syria, and any Foreign Office officials seeking to liaise with the opposition leaders would require close protection from Special Forces."

On 5 August, US senators John McCain (Arizona) Lindsey O. Graham (South Carolina) and Joseph Lieberman (Connecticut) advised the US government to directly and openly provide assistance, including weapons, intelligence and training, to the Syrian insurgents.

On 7 August, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, hurtling round the world like the proverbial headless chicken, threatening, lecturing, and ranting, talked of the urgency of planning for a "post-Assad Syria".

Today, Hague has announced he is committing "an additional" five million pounds to the terrorists. Which begs the question: how much was the British government providing already?

Another open secret has also come out: Turkey is training terrorists to go into Syria. Turkey, of course, is a NATO Member, and it is desperate to get into the European Union with its dying currency. It appears to be prepared to do anything to curry favour, the first figurative Turkey to vote for Christmas, with NATO and EU members.

Veteran Russian politician Yevgeny Primakov is under no illusions about all this, and he has said that "mercenaries and volunteers from other states are fighting [Al-Assad] jointly with violent internal forces." While most Syrian opposition members are non-violent and want to see a peaceful resolution to the crisis, Washington has other ideas.

"President Obama has given a direct order to the CIA to support the Syrian opposition," Primakov said. "That is flagrant interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, which does not endanger the United States or anyone else." Moreover, "Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding militants. Turkey is giving them active support," and so are other regional countries.

This would appear to be borne out by photographer John Cantile and his colleague, Dutch journalist Jeroen Oerlemans, kidnapped by "rebels" on 19 July and escaping a week later.

Cantile told the BBC he had been held in a camp by 30 foreign extremists, including some from Britain and Pakistan. He stated that some of his captors were "young men with south London accents."

He asserted that some of the insurgents could not speak Arabic, with around a dozen of his captors speaking English, out of whom nine had spoken with London accents. "There was not a Syrian in sight. This wasn't what I had expected," Cantile added. "Two of them were so anglicised they couldn't speak Arabic." This was confirmed by Oerlemans, who also said there were Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Chechens and other nationalities among them.

Britain, seemingly, does not just fund terrorists; it also exports them. The Foreign Office confirmed the kidnapping, but declined to confirm that there had been British nationals amongst the criminals. Well, they wouldn't, would they?

"The Security Council recognises the urgent need for additional efforts to be made at national, regional and international levels in order to prevent the illicit proliferation [of] materials of all types [which could] fuel terrorist activities," states the Security Council document. These are utterly meaningless 13 pages, as Security Council member states are now funding terrorism against a sovereign nation and government.

The Syrian ambassador to the UN, Bashar Jafari, reminded listeners of UK prime minister David Cameron's reaction to last year's UK riots. "Cameron said that 'when it is related to national security, don't talk to me about human rights. We care about the human rights of our people.' There are third parties in the domestic crisis in Syria." Mark Lyall Grant called Jafari's remarks "utterly grotesque." Another flight from reality.

In an article that appeared in the UK newspaper The Daily Telegraph at the same time, the eminent British-based surgeon Fawaz Akhras, Al-Assad's father in law, said that "when the London riots burst out, Cameron said he would bring the army out. How would you compare [the riots] to Homs? What would you do? Just watch them killing? There is a responsibility to ensure the security of your people."

In London now because of the Olympics there are ground-to air-missiles on domestic buildings, warships with an array of armaments at different venues, 20,000 soldiers, and armed police. The lethal weaponry deployed in Britain's most-populated region could, if used, wipe out thousands.

The US-UK axis and others funding terrorists are blaming Syria's government for the situation in the country. But in 1980 the US boycotted the Moscow Olympics because the former USSR had invaded and occupied Afghanistan. Think about the similarity.

The writer is a journalist with special knowledge of Iraq.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

President consolidates powers

By abrogating the 17 June supplementary Constitutional Declaration, the president concentrates sweeping powers in his hands, Gamal Essam El-Din reports

President Mohamed Mursi's decision to send minister of defence Hussein Tantawi and chief of the military staff Sami Anan into retirement might have hogged the headlines but it was the abrogation of the 17 June supplementary Constitutional Declaration that is really big news.

For the first time since the 1952 coup the army has been stripped of any political role. And courtesy of a new Constitutional Declaration in which Mursi granted himself all the powers listed in Article 56 of the 30 March 2011 Constitutional Declaration, he now wields full legislative and executive authority.

Mursi can legislate, approve or veto policy and budget decisions, appoint -- and dismiss -- the prime minister and cabinet, senior civil servants, military personnel and diplomats.

More controversially, Mursi has given himself the right to appoint a new constituent assembly, "should future developments prevent the current assembly from carrying out its responsibilities" -- ie draft a new constitution on time.

Should the existing assembly be dissolved by judicial order -- which could well happen in September -- it is Mursi who will appoint its replacement.

Mursi has become Egypt's absolute ruler, enjoying dictatorial powers that surpass those of his predecessor, Hosni Mubarak.

"The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), which had ruled Egypt since Mubarak's ouster, repeatedly said it would cede complete powers to a new president only after a constitution was in force," says Tagammu Party chairman Rifaat El-Said. "Now it is clear this was a false promise. SCAF has rolled over easily and allowed Mursi to concentrate power in his hands."

"The decisions of 12 August make Mursi the new pharaoh of Egypt," says Salah Eissa, editor of the weekly Al-Qahira. "After ridding Egypt of a military dictatorship, we are about to see it replaced by an Islamist one."

Constitutional expert Shawqi El-Sayed argues that Mursi's decisions mean he has broken his 30 June constitutional oath: "When he took the oath," says El-Sayed," he swore that he would uphold the 17 June supplementary Constitutional Declaration."

Speculation is rife that Mursi made his move after consulting with at least some elements within the military, and that the process is part of a safe exit strategy for Egypt's transitional military rulers.

Mursi's actions drew praise from the Muslim Brotherhood, in whose ranks Mursi served for 30 years.

"Egypt now has a single president rather than a presidency with two heads," said Saad El-Husseini, former Brotherhood MP. "This is a turning point in Egypt's history. For the first time in 60 years a civilian president is in complete control, even over the army."

The contentious changes introduced by SCAF on 17 June gave it legislative authority and the right to decide all issues related to the Armed Forces.

SCAF issued the declaration three days after parliament was dissolved by the Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC) on 14 June.

At the time SCAF's generals argued the declaration was necessary to avoid a legislative vacuum.

"The 17 supplementary June Declaration seeks to uphold the principle of the separation of powers and ensure that authority is not concentrated in a single pair of hands," said SCAF member Mohamed El-Assar. Under Mursi's changes, El-Assar is now assistant minister of defence.

Brotherhood officials insist Mursi will give up all legislative power once a new constitution is written. "This will be completed in three or four months, after which we will have full separation of powers," says El-Husseini.

Such promises are not enough to reassure El-Said. "These immense powers are especially dangerous. I am not alone in believing Mursi will seek to use them to turn the Muslim Brotherhood into a state within a state," he says.

"It's clear to everyone how the Brotherhood is now pushing its militias into the streets to intimidate any kind of opposition to Mursi and his policies. Already newspapers and satellite channels have been closed and there is a concerted campaign to terrorise the media."

The amendment granting Mursi the right to select members of the constituent assembly should the existing assembly be dissolved has caused the greatest concern among secular forces, some of whom have raised the chilling spectre of an emerging Islamist state that enjoys military backing.

Any hopes that the current assembly would be dissolved by judicial order next month and then replaced by a more balanced body have been dashed. "If Mursi is the one entrusted with selecting its replacement," says Eissa, "I can guarantee it will be dominated by Islamists."

During his presidential election, Mursi vowed that he would do his best to appoint a new constituent assembly that "represents all factions of Egyptian society" and "after consulting with political forces".

"This never happened," says Eissa. "Even the National Front, which supported Mursi on 22 June, has said he has failed to keep his promises." Article 60 of the 17 June supplementary declaration had included the provision that if the president, SCAF's chairman, the supreme council of the judiciary, the prime minister or a fifth of the members of the constituent assembly objected to any article of the draft constitution on the grounds that it contradicted with the goals of the 25th January Revolution, then the article would be referred back and reconsidered.

"But Mursi is very unlikely to object to any articles from the Islamist-dominated assembly," says Eissa.

Article 60 also stipulated that the Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC) would have the final say on articles contained within the constitution and that its orders would be final and binding.

It is this clause, together with the fate of the People's Assembly dissolved by the SCC on 14 June, that will most likely form the centerpiece of Mursi's next showdown.

Few commentators doubt that it will be with the court.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.