Kruppel-like factor 4 is involved in cell scattering induced by hepatocyte growth factor

Advance Online Publication August 1, 2012 doi: 10.1242/?jcs.108910 Jun-Kai Lai, Han-Chung Wu, Yuh-Chiang Shen, Hsin-Ying Hsieh, Shu-Yi Yang and Chia-Che Chang*?*: Corresponding author: Chia-Che Chang, Ph.D.
, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, National Chung Hsing University, 250 Kuo-Kuang Road, Taichung 40227, TAIWAN; E-mail: chia_che{at}dragon.nchu.edu.tw; Tel: +886-4-22852022; Fax: +886-4-22853469 Hepatocyte growth factor/scatter factor (HGF) is unique by inducing epithelial cell scattering, a cellular event pivotal to HGF-mediated invasive-growth response essential for embryonic development and metastasis. Krüppel-like factor 4 (KLF4) is a multifunctional zinc-finger transcription factor involved in cell proliferation, differentiation and self-renewal. We herein present the first evidence for the functional connection between KLF4 and HGF-induced cell scattering. Particularly, we found that KLF4 was up-regulated by HGF in two independent epithelial cellular systems HepG2 and MDCK, whereas KLF4 knockdown inhibited HGF-induced E-cadherin suppression and cell scattering. Moreover, enforced nuclear KLF4 expression alone was sufficient to up-regulate KLF4, down-regulate E-cadherin and trigger scattering. Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) analysis further revealed that KLF4 induced suppression of E-cadherin transcription by directly binding to the E-cadherin promoter. Additionally, we proved that HGF-induced up-regulation of KLF4 transcription and cell scattering require activation of the MEK/ERK signaling pathway and the induction of early growth response 1 (EGR-1). At the mechanistic level, ChIP analysis validated a direct binding of EGR-1 to the KLF4 promoter for inducing KLF4 transcription; in turn, EGR-1-induced KLF4 binds to its own promoter, thus creating a positive feedback mechanism to sustain KLF4 expression and resultant cell scattering. Collectively, we conclude that KLF4 up-regulation by HGF represents a novel mechanism to mediate HGF-induced cell scattering and perhaps other associated events such as cell migration and invasion.

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.

Security in Sinai

A recent government decision that allows foreigners to invest in Sinai is moot without restoring stability in the strategic peninsula, writes Nesma Nowar

The Egyptian government agreed last week to allow foreigners to invest in Sinai with a maximum stake of 45 per cent in any Sinai-based project. Meanwhile, Egyptian capital in any project should not be less than 55 per cent.

Still, foreigners are not allowed to own land in Sinai, but they can run their ventures through concession contracts from the government.

For security reasons, the Egyptian government has historically banned foreigners from investing and owning land in Sinai. Even land ownership for Egyptians has been firmly controlled. Egyptian investors with a non-Egyptian parent, for example, cannot own land but can obtain concession contracts in Sinai.

Though last week's decision was welcomed by the business community as helping to spur investment in Sinai, the head of the North Sinai Chamber of Commerce, Abdallah Badawi, believes that the decision will not attract much investment.

"The matter which should be discussed first is how we can regain security in Sinai," Badawi told Al-Ahram Weekly. "We cannot speak about investment before restoring security."

Badawi added that the government decision should be accompanied by a bundle of incentives to boost investment. "The decision alone would not be able to attract any investments."

Naguib Said, head of the exporters division at the North Sinai Chamber of Commerce, shares a similar view. He said that the decision to allow foreigners to invest in Sinai is a positive one. However, "it came too late."

Said explained that the decision could have been applicable 20 years ago, when conditions in Sinai were relatively stable, but it would not do much in light of the current deteriorated security conditions in Sinai.

"Local investors are afraid of investing in Sinai themselves," Said told the Weekly. "How can we expect foreign investors to come and invest?" he asked.

Said explained that Sinai is not only a fertile land for tourism but also for a wide range of sectors, including mining, industry and agriculture.

Badawi agrees with Said. He said that Sinai is in need of labour intensive investment, such as construction and agricultural projects.

"The government should start investing in Sinai and thus attract private sector and foreigners to invest as well," Said said. He underlined the importance of introducing investment incentives, like tax exemptions and lower prices of electricity, natural gas and water granted to Sinai-based projects.

The government's decision comes against the backdrop of the establishment of a new national authority for the development of Sinai -- a body with a budget of LE1 billion.

Prime Minister Hisham Qandil stated last week that the new authority is set to endorse projects worth LE1.2 billion to be funded from the current 2012/13 budget, the Armed Forces and foreign parties.

Qandil pointed out that the projects would include establishing fishing ports, roads, schools, factories and wells.

Development in the Sinai Peninsula has consistently been hampered in recent years owing to its strategic location on the Egyptian-Israeli border.

Sinai and its development came into the spotlight after the deadly attack that killed 16 Egyptian border guards on 5 August.

Following the attack, the military launched Operation Eagle to clear Sinai of militant Islamist groups allegedly involved in the border attack.

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.

Anchor incognito

Opinions are divided over Maria TV, a new satellite television channel on which the all-female presenters are all fully veiled, writes Omneya Yousry

Maria TV is a women's cultural channel that broadcasts within the framework of Islamist religious ideas. Its presenters appear shrouded in long, flowing black robes and wearing a full face veil known as the niqab with black gloves to match, making them distinguishable only by their voices and their eyes.

The channel is run primarily by women, who operate the cameras, present the shows and interview female guests ranging from doctors to students of Islamic theology. However, these women cannot show their faces during broadcasts, and no men are allowed on air during the channel's all-female programming, not even on phone-ins.

The channel was launched in a period that has seen greater freedom for the media in Egypt and particularly for the appearance of veiled women on television, discouraged under the rule of ousted former president Hosni Mubarak. Veiled women can now present television programmes particularly within the niche market of community programming, though the minister of information has recently also allowed the appearance of veiled female presenters even on state TV.

According to Alaa Abdallah, executive director and media spokesperson for Maria TV, the channel's name derives from that of Maria the Copt, one of the wives of the Prophet Mohamed. "She was the first woman to have enjoyed the right of choice in religion," Abdallah said, noting that when the prophet was given Maria, a slave, by the Patriarch Muqawqis he married her and set her free, causing her to convert to Islam.

The Maria channel started broadcasting on 20 July, the first day of Ramadan, in daily slots of four hours from 12pm to 4pm on the existing Al-Umma Channel owned by Ahmed Abdallah, known by his nickname "Abu Islam." During the Mubarak period, Al-Umma TV was raided many times by the security forces, and financial troubles forced it to shut down in 2008. Abu Islam himself was detained at least four times, the longest being for 22 days.

The station relaunched last year when the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood and ultra-conservative Salafis emerged as the most influential political forces in post-Mubarak Egypt. Maria TV was launched to coincide with the start of Ramadan, and it is designed by Abdallah as part of a broader effort to expand his religious pan-Arab station Umma TV.

"We had been thinking of the idea since 2007, but the political conditions at the time did not allow us to make it a reality," said Alaa Abdallah. "Today, our presenters consist of five women, all of whom wear the niqab on air, though of course we also have more employees. At the moment, we work on a voluntary basis, and what brings us together is the idea of Maria TV. We didn't know each other before the idea arose. Since I'm a daughter of Abu Islam, he suggested that we announce on Al-Umma TV our intention to launch a new channel dedicated to women wearing the niqab. After that, we created a Facebook group for the same purpose and started to meet as volunteers at the Al-Umma office."

Shows broadcast by the channel range from beauty programmes, in which the presenters discuss make-up tricks without actually showing any, to shows about medicine, marriage, politics, human development, culture and religion. There is a satirical show poking fun at major news stories that uses puppets. According to Abdallah, Maria TV presents a variety of programmes covering all areas of interest to the Muslim family. "We depend on specialisation: medical programmes are presented by doctors, and social programmes are presented by sociologists," she said.

There are now more than five million women wearing the niqab in Egypt, Abdallah said, and this means that the channel has a large potential audience. "We are against men dealing with women's issues, which is why we do not accept men on the channel. However, we have needed the help of men employed by Al-Umma TV to help with technical issues and preliminary training," she said.

"For people who say that we are encouraging sectarianism, they should know that we are all working voluntarily for an idea and not for money. I don't accept women who do not wear the veil, or women who wear ordinary veils, working with us because they don't represent us. We are not excluding them from any job opportunity. We promote the idea that Muslim women should wear the niqab, which we believe is an obligation for all Muslim women. We want Muslim women wearing the niqab to be seen as role models for Muslim wives and mothers in the Egyptian media."

"We do not have any agenda to exclude anyone. All of us are one family and belong to one homeland. But I want to give young women the ability to see women who wear the niqab on television and to say 'I want to be like that,' helping to create a generation that wants to be like us."

Financially, Maria TV was launched with the help of donations sought through announcements on Al-Umma TV. "Every month, Al-Umma TV announces that it is looking for donations to renew its contract with the NileSat satellite. We do not depend on businessmen. On the contrary, ordinary people should be able to contribute to this Islamic project that serves the Muslim nation," Abdallah explained. Programmes are recorded at the Al-Umma studios in a second-floor apartment of a building overlooking one of Cairo's biggest mosques in Abbasiya Square.

However, not everyone is happy about the format of Maria TV. According to Sami El-Sherif, former president of the Egyptian Radio and Television Federation and currently dean of mass communication at a private university, the channel is inconsistent with the Egyptian media.

"They suffer from limited material in terms of content, and they do not serve their target audience," El-Sherif said. "Basic media thinking tells us that there should be communication between the sender of a message and that message's target audience, and one of the media's most important means of communication is eye contact. This is lost in the case of Maria TV."

"Moreover, there is incoherence in the idea of women wearing the niqab on TV. The idea of the niqab is to preclude women from appearing in public. However, these women do appear. As a result, there seems to be a violation of the thinking behind the wearing of the niqab."

However, El-Sherif added that similar channels may well appear. Maria TV is part of a trend, he said, and it is one that can be expected to spread because of the absence of regulation and the low fees charged for satellite transmission, leading to a proliferation of niche channels.

Some women wearing the niqab also said that they did not think that the channel represented them and that it could be acting to isolate them from the rest of society. Hemmat Safwat, who wears the niqab and is a Quranic teacher, said that she didn't see why there was a need for the channel. Maria TV was making the mistake of separating fully veiled women off from the rest of society, she said, something that such women did not need.

"If they really only accept fully veiled women, then I dislike them as much as I dislike channels that only accept unveiled women," said Amir Yousri, a designer. "We are seeing exactly the same kind of discrimination here that they claim to oppose. I'm fine with the idea of having fully veiled TV presenters, as long as they are not on the national TV channels, however. It is normal that private channels might seek to represent a specific kind of ideology and direct their programmes to the corresponding audience."

Annie Ferrer, an American housewife resident in Egypt, said that "it's a private channel, so they can do whatever they want. I just think it's strange. Maybe it will give jobs to women who would otherwise not want to work around men, but from the viewer's perspective I don't think it matters whether the person talking is covered or not. They should be judged by the quality of the programmes they offer."

"As for the discrimination part, it could be considered as a form of positive discrimination, which tries to incorporate people who are usually discriminated against. This kind of positive discrimination is very common in Europe, where governments must have a certain percentage of women working for them, or there must be a certain percentage of disabled employees."

Andaleeb Fahmi, a Faculty of Mass Communications member at the Canadian Al-Ahram University, expressed her astonishment at the idea of the channel, which she considered to be going against the idea of thematic channels. "What is the point of a niqab channel? Is it to display their problems, or is it a channel to invite people to be religious or what?" Mariam Alfred, a computer science student, also had difficulty accepting this kind of channel. "It's discrimination," she said. "For sure they will discuss everything from a very closed perspective with no acceptance of difference."

"If they think women's faces should be hidden, why don't they also think the same about their voices," asked Amira Safwat, a housewife and mass communications graduate. "I also have a problem with the kind of guests they will likely provide, as these will exclude men and any non-fully veiled women, which means they will not show me more than 90 per cent of the community. It's a private channel, so they are free to do whatever they want. But I'm also free to change the channel if I don't like it," she added.

"I'm in favour of the concept, as long as they represent a sector of the community. They can discuss their point of view like the Christian channels do, which nobody accuses of fanaticism," said Passinte Amin, a bank employee.

"If they don't accept any women other than women who wear the niqab, will they broadcast ads that contain all social categories? If not, will they have to depend on donations permanently," asked Hossam Elhami, a mechanical engineer. "I'm not really sure if it makes a difference for them or for the audience what they present on TV or on the radio. But if they lose the visual part of television, for me it will be like listening to a radio presenter," he added.

Abdallah expects positive feedback to Maria TV, although she knows there will likely be people who are against the idea. "We haven't had any opponents up to now, though there was a Facebook page called 'Together to close Maria TV.'" We are aiming to reach out to a part of society that has not been targeted by the media before," she said.

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.

The Merchants of Venice

Samir Farid reports from the centre of the world

The 69th round of the Venice Film Festival (29 Augest-8 September) ?ê" the most prestigious in the world, and the third to take place annually after Berlin in February and Cannes in May ?ê" is this year celebrating 80 years since its first round.

Among the most memorable rounds in the history of Venice was that of 1983, which saw the first ever history-of-cinema programme in the world, curated by Francesco Bassinini, and that of 1949, when the grand prix was first called the Golden Lion after the lion of Saint Mark, the emblem of the city. Following years of disruption, the festival became established in 1980, competing with Cannes and Berlin.

The 2012 round is the first to be directed by the celebrated film scholar Alberto Barbera, taking over from the brilliant Marco Muller, who directed the festival for the last eight years. Barbera directed the festival in the period 1999-2002, after which he directed the National Film Museum in Turin. Barbera might see the festival differently to Muller, but a quick look at the programme is all it takes to realise he will maintain the success achieved by his predecessor. As is immediately evident, where Muller pays as much attention to quantity as quality and likes all kinds of films, Barbera is rather more interested in quality; and he prefers auteur films to others.

To celebrate 80 years since the first round, besides selections from the institution's archives entitled "80!", Barbera introduced a programme named Venice Classics, which will screen 20 restored films produced in the period 1974-84 in the US, the UK, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Japan and the Philippines as well as nine new feature-length documentaries on cinema from the US, Italy, France and Mexico.

Aside from films by Terrence Malick and Paul-Thomas Anderson, Marco Bellocchio, Brian de Palma and Takishi Kitano, the festival opened with the Qatari-American production The Reluctant Fundamentalist by Mira Nair ?ê" an out-of-competition screening. This was the first time in film history that any of the three major festivals opened with an Arab coproduction; it reflects Qatar's ambition to establish itself as a powerful state with international influence despite its small size and population, capitalising on its oil revenues to interact with contemporary world civilisation. The coproduction took place through the Doha Film Institute, headed by Princess Al-Mayyassa bint Hamad Al-Thani who is well-known for her love of the arts, which also organises the annual Doha-Tribeca Film Festival.

In fact, thanks to the Arab Spring, there is a remarkable Arab contribution to Venice this year, from Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Palestine and, for the first time, Libya and Saudi Arabia as well: feature-length documentaries by Libyan filmmaker Abdalla Omaish's (Witness: Libya, an American production, the first on the Libyan revolution by a Libyan) and Tunisian filmmaker Hinde Boujemaa (Ya man aach or "It was better tomorrow") outside the competition; the Egyptian filmmaker Ibrahim El-Batout's El-Sheita Elli Fat (Winter of Discontent) in the Orizzonte or "Horizons" section; and, also outside the competition, Algerian filmmaker Djamila Sahraoui's Yema and Saudi filmmaker Haifaa Al Mansour's Wadjda, a French and German production, respectively: the first fiction feature ever to be shot in Saudi territory.

***

El-Batout's El-Sheita Elli Fat is an example of the kind of western interest the Arab Spring has generated in Arab cinema. For even though such momentous events in one of the world's most important sources of energy and the site of fundamentalist-secular conflict can encourage attention to the work of such a young artist on the topic, it is also true that films are selected for screening at the major festivals based on artistic merit alone. If Youssri Nassrallah is among the icons of innovation in Egyptian cinema through the 1980s, then Ibrahim El-Batout is an icon of the independent cinema movement that emerged as the most important development in the 1990s; it may in fact be said that El-Batout is the godfather of independent cinema.

He arrived on the film scene from outside it and in 1996 began to make documentaries in some of the world's hottest spots. He made his first full-length fiction feature, Ithaka, named after CP Cavafy's poem, in 2004. With his second film, Ain Shams (Heliopolis), he managed to cross the Mediterranean and make a name for himself in the world at large ?ê" a reputation he confirmed with Hawi (Conjuror) in 2010. With his present, fourth film, El-Batout arrives at the world's most prestigious film festival.

The independent movements in art, music, theatre and literature as well as film played an essential role in forging the consciousness that led to the 25 January revolution. They were paralleled by political initiatives, notably Kifaya which started in 2004. With actors Amr Waked and Farah Youssef ?ê" the stars of El-Sheita Elli Fat ?ê" El-Batout was among those who took part in the 18-day sit-in that toppled former president Hosny Mubarak in 25 January-11 February, 2011; the closing scene was shot on 10 February in Tahrir Square. Here as elsewhere in El-Batout's work, the film does not follow a pre-written script; it emerges, rather, from place and time through the characters, gradually taking holistic form until it reaches completion. Like any postmodern filmmaker, El-Batout makes no distinction between fiction and documentary.

This is particularly true of El-Sheita Elli Fat, which documents the revolution subjectively and expresses an equally subjective, sharp position against the regime the revolution sought to change ?ê" the artist's absolute support for the revolution. This is achieved through three pivotal characters: Amr (Amr Waked), a computer wiz; his girlfriend Farah (Farah Youssef), a government TV anchor; and Adel (Saleh El-Hanafi), a State Security officer. Instead of a story with a beginning, a middle and an end, here as elsewhere El-Batout presents interpersonal relations whose dynamics determine the destiny of each. The situation is presented without apparent artifice: While Amr lives with his mother in an average middle-class apartment, Adel lives in a luxurious home with his wife, son and daughter and their Filipina maid.

The film opens on 25 January while Amr, on his computer screen, is watching a State Security detainee recount what happened to him in the way of torture by electric shock, among other means. At the same time Farah, on air, is trying to truthfully describe what is happening on the street while her colleague, in the same show, is misleading viewers to please his boss who demands that they should downplay the significance of the demonstrations. In the first half of the film, the action moves between January 2009 and January 2011, when Amr is arrested once again. As he watches the internet video, Amr remembers what happened to him in January 2009, when ?ê" unannounced and without trial ?ê" he was arrested and detained indefinitely for demonstrating against the Israeli war on Gaza that year. In the detention centre he too was subjected to torture, and there he made the acquaintance of Adel ?ê" who will not release him until he is convinced that Amr will cooperate with State Security, planting in him the doubt that Farah too cooperates; otherwise should couldn't have been a successful anchor. Amr leaves the detention centre with a broken spirit to find out that his mother has died of grief after looking for him everywhere and failing to find him.

On 28 January we hear portions of Mubarak's first address, sound only. Farah revolts against her employers' pro-regime policies, leaving her work to join the revolution. On 1 February Mubarak's second speech is heard, once again without pictures; we see the "popular committees" that have cropped up to replace the police throughout Cairo; we also see how State Security begins to deploy thugs against the protesters, with Adel overseeing the storage of knives and canes in an apartment near Tahrir Square. Thus begin the cycles of violence: protesters kill a thug in retaliation. On 10 February comes Mubarak's third ?ê" and last ?ê" address, followed by Omar Soliman's speech on 11 February in which he announces Mubarak's stepping down. Once again, the picture does not accompany the sound. Throughout the film the viewer sees the events of the revolution on non-Egyptian satellite channels through television sets in houses and in Adel's office. El-Batout uses subtitles to specify dates. Documentary footage of demonstrations in Tahrir Square accompany Soliman's speech.

Adel goes to see his family in the Red Sea resort of Ain Sokhna, where he has asked them to stay. We see the doctor Rafik William, who was arrested with Amr Waked on 28 January and testified that he did join the revolution because he wanted a better life for his as yet unborn son; subtitles tell us that Rafik was killed in the wake of the revolution, a month after the birth of his son. On Qaserelnil Bridge, near Tahrir Square, the actors-characters gather after they have finished making their film; the final shot shows Amr and Farah together again. Subtitles give figures for the dead, the injured, the lost and those in custody with the phrase "Still counting".

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.

Government to go?

Jordan's incumbent government is leading the country into crisis, with neither the people nor parliamentarians satisfied with its performance, writes Khetam Malkawi

Since its first day in office, the government of Prime Minister Fayez Al-Tarawneh was described by Jordanian politicians and analysts as "provocative" as it adopted decisions that sparked anger across the country.

Unlike the previous three governments that took the office over the past two years, during the Arab Spring, who were cautious not to take any decision that would anger the public, Al-Tarawneh's government neglected street demands by enforcing fuel price hikes leading to strikes that swept the kingdom's 12 governorates over the weekend and prompted parliamentarians to sign a motion of no confidence.

Late Friday, authorities decided to raise the price of 90-octane gasoline from 0.7 Jordanian Dinars (JD) per litre to JD0.77, a 10 per cent rise, and the price of diesel from JD0.515 per litre to JD0.55. Friday's decision was the second price hike in the past three months, since Al-Tarawneh took office.

This decision, according to officials, was aimed at minimising the cost on the Treasury, which is expected to suffer an estimated deficit of over JD1 billion this year, of supporting oil derivative prices.

This sudden rise was met with shock by Jordanians from all walks of life who took to the streets chanting slogans against the Cabinet, demanding Al-Tarawneh and his ministers leave office amid courageous slogans that targeted the monarch, King Abdullah, himself.

Not only the public showed anger, but also 89 MPs of the 120-seat lower house of parliament signed a motion of no confidence against Al-Tarawneh's government, in response to this decision and previous decisions.

Unless saved by the bell, more escalated measures were supposed to take place across the country of 6.5 million people.

Two days into implementation of the fuel price hike, the king ordered the government to freeze the decision, absorbing the anger of Jordanians.

This last decision by the Cabinet was not the only provocative one, but it was the most, as it affected the majority of the country's people, according to analysts interviewed by Al-Ahram Weekly.

Islamic Action Front (IAF) Secretary-General Hamzah Mansour described this government as a "burden".

"It started its mission by ignoring the people and political parties' demands of having a fair elections law," Mansour said, noting this government "adopted" again the one-person one-vote electoral system that was rejected by the majority of Jordanians.

The IAF was the first political party to boycott the upcoming parliamentary elections set to take place before the end of this year, objecting to the one-man one-vote law, saying that it aims at eliminating their presence in the people's parliament.

The government also put itself in confrontation with the media after endorsing amendments to the Press and Publications Law that seeks to limit media freedoms and targets online media, according to Mansour.

Two weeks ago, the government endorsed amendments to the law under which a specialised court will look into media cases, and set a four-month deadline for this court to wrap up any case it looks into.

The legislation also holds online media outlet publishers responsible for comments their readers might post under published articles, in addition to requesting them to archive comments for a period no less than six months.

The draft law, which met with refusal from journalists and online news publishers, is currently being deliberated by the House of Representatives.

But the last decision of raising fuel prices was the worst, according to Mansour, who noted that the king's interference saved the country from falling into crisis.

Jamil Nimri, a deputy and political analyst, agrees with Mansour, but added that the government is "narrow minded" as it "challenged" Jordanians.

Over the past three months, the government announced appointments in high positions that involved relatives of influential figures, and left no room for discussion.

This was also a concern for writer and owner of an online news website Basel Okour who said the government's appointments is an indicator that "public opinion and public reaction is not of its interest".

He added that although three previous governments did not achieve political and economic reform, none of them had the courage to challenge the public as this government, which increased tension in the streets.

Meanwhile, Nimri slammed the government for not opening discussion with Islamists, noting that different currents of the community were waiting for the government to interact with them, "but it failed to".

According to Nimri, the government's decisions reflect the absence of consensus and consultation among government members.

He also noted that although the government stopped the hike of fuel prices, this would not protect it from the no-confidence vote adopted by deputies this week.

The deputy explained that the motion came after an accumulation of wrong decisions made by the government.

Political analyst Hassan Barari also echoed Nimri's view and described the government as being "autocratic".

"The autocratic mind-set of the prime minister and his government has only deepened the political crisis in Jordan. The government -- which was supposed to be transitional -- has made catastrophic decisions that have furthered the widening gap in trust between the state and society," said Barari, who is also a professor at the University of Jordan.

He added that the last decision to raise the prices of petrol in Jordan convinced observers and pundits that the prime minister is isolated from the street: "The government cannot claim with any credibility that it is responsive to the demands of people."

All these decisions were taking place, according to Barari, at a time the government has mobilised its resources to convince Jordanians to register for the upcoming elections. However, he said: "The modest number of those who have registered for elections is indicative of the lack of trust of the people in this government."

So far, of the three million Jordanians who can vote, only 700,000 citizens have registered for the upcoming parliamentary elections.

This crisis, prompted news reports expecting that Al-Tarawneh would submit his resignation to the king within days.

Although Barari considers the government's resignation -- or being dismissed by the king -- a must, Mansour said that its resignation alone would not be a solution.

"Over the past two years there were four governments and they failed to achieve reform. Thus the only solution is to have a national salvation government," Mansour concluded.

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.

Jewish refugees?

With astounding gall, Israel is now claiming that more Jews "fled" Arab countries than Palestinians fled Palestine, writes Saleh Al-Naami The mother of Ehab Abu Nada holds a photograph of her son as she reads the Quran at her house in Gaza; a pro-Palestinian activist flashes the victory sign after being detained by Jordanian police during a demonstration in front of the Israeli embassy in Amman

Jawla Levy, 78, who lives in Arad settlement in southern Israel, still remembers the four Jewish Europeans who visited her family that lived in Baghdad in the summer of 1949. Levy told Israel Radio Sunday this group of Jewish men who spoke fluent Arabic did their best to convince her father -- a leading figure in Iraq's Jewish community at the time -- to help convince Iraqi Jews to emigrate to Israel. Israel was still a nascent state, barely one year old, established in Palestine after the original inhabitants were chased out by Zionist guerrillas.

Levy said her father found it very hard to persuade many Jews to leave Iraq to go to Palestine, and she accused Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, of executing a careful plan to force Jews to leave Iraq by firebombing Jewish synagogues and businesses. This resulted in a mass exodus by Jews from Iraq to the erstwhile Palestine. She added that Mossad recruited Iraqi groups to carry out the attacks to convince Jews that Iraq was not a place they want to be.

Levy's account corresponds with what is stated in books examining Jewish presence in Iraq that documented bombings by Mossad that convinced the Jews to leave. Her testimonial is especially relevant because it comes at a time when the Israeli government launched a broad campaign to rally international support to demand recognition of Jews who emigrated from Arab countries to Israel as refugees -- just as Palestinian refugees. The testimonials of Levy and others confirm that Israel initiated plans to bring Jews into Israel and did not hesitate in using terrorism to achieve this goal.

It is evident that the campaign proposed by Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman fundamentally aims to strip Palestinian refugees of their right to return to the lands they were expelled from. Also, according to Security Council Resolution 194, demanding reparations for losses incurred as a result of the expulsion schemes by Zionist guerrillas before and after the declaration of the Israeli state.

Israel's move is based on painting Eastern Jews who left Arab states after the creation of Israel as "refugees" who were "expelled and dispossessed", which requires the world community to support Israel's position demanding compensation for these "refugees". Israel's former foreign minister and ambassador to Washington Danny Ayalon was appointed to lead the campaign, who suggested it should be called "I am a Jewish refugee." Three Israeli institutions -- the Foreign Ministry, the Ministry of Pensioner Affairs and the World Jewish Congress -- will cooperate in documenting and gathering data on the properties of those who lived in the Arab world and then immigrated to Israel.

So far, 20,000 cases of migrant Jews have been documented as the three institutions prepare to hold news conferences and international seminars beginning this month to coincide with the UN General Assembly gathering. To make it more believable, the Knesset will also issue laws and regulations obligating Israeli negotiators to include the issue of Jewish "refugees" from Arab states in final negotiations, as a precondition to finalise any peace plan or signing any agreements. This augments a law issued by the Knesset in 2010 stipulating that any final agreement should be linked to resolving the issue of possessions of refugee Jews and their rights as refugees.

Further still, the move also aims to embarrass the "moderate" camp in the Arab world since it demands linking the issue of Jewish "refugees" with the Arab Peace Initiative sponsored by Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah in 2002. That plan proposes the creation of a Palestinian state inside 1967 borders and a return of refugees as prerequisites for normalising relations with Israel. The campaign would mean settling the rights of Jewish immigrants as part of normalising relations, along with targeted moves to integrate the issue of Jewish refugees in talks with all countries as well as the UN, and demanding that countries around the world adopt this issue in new laws and stipulations.

More worrying is that the campaign links the issue of immigrant Jews from Arab countries with the Holocaust and considers their deportation from Arab countries as "genocide," and thus they should be commemorated as victims at Israel's Holocaust and Heroism Memorial. The campaign further claims that the number of Jewish "refugees" exceeds the number of Palestinian refugees, and that they suffered losses worth more than $100 billion. Meanwhile, Israel's publicity machine claims that the land owned by Jewish "refugees" was far greater than the size of Palestine itself.

Supervising these fabricated facts is a US Jewish organisation concerned with the affairs of immigrant Jews that recently claimed that it would create "Justice for Jews in Arab Countries (JJAC)". It has recently established a fund to protect graves, rehabilitate synagogues and recover copies of the Torah located in Arab countries, as well as granting academic scholarships for the study of Jewish presence in Arab countries.

Tawfiq Abu Shumar, a Palestinian researcher and writer, describes the comparison of the issue of Palestinian refugees with Jewish refugees from Arab states as "invalid and baseless". Abu Shumar retorts: "Palestinians left their motherland and possessions and continue to live in exile and Diaspora, while the Jews of the Arab world have seized our homes and possessions and returned to their alleged homeland. What possessions they left behind are far less than the possessions and land they stole from us."

He continued: "Linking Jewish emigration with the Holocaust is provocative to the mind of all humanity; historic documents do not report any massacres of Jews in the Arab world. In fact, many of them still live in several Arab states as respectable citizens. Meanwhile, Arab Jews who immigrated to Israel still have fond memories of the Arab world which hosted them for many years, and did not deport them."

He explained that "many Jews in Israel still hang the portrait of Morocco's King Mohamed V; I have seen it with my own eyes. The Jews of Iraq and Egypt are still sentimental about these two countries and listen to Arabic music and speak Arabic, not Hebrew, at home, and promote Arab culture and arts."

Israel's campaign spurred Abu Shumar to criticise Palestinian institutions responsible for documenting the dilemma of Palestinian refugees. "The multitude of Palestinian refugee institutions, organisations and societies are still incapable of forming comprehensive archives with audio and video footage of the rights of refugees and their descendants, and the ramifications on life and education based on these rights," he said, noting that all these institutions and societies are good for is publishing papers on anniversaries, distributing booklets, maps, portfolios and hot meals. Sometimes they would hold a conference without any centralised effort to boost cooperation among refugee bodies to document all the rights of Palestinians with audio, video and document records.

Abu Shumar believes that this a much more worthy endeavour than empty political rhetoric, repetitive party slogans, and disputes over forming governments and ministries on which factions on the Palestinian arena differ.

Israel's fabrications are shamelessly provocative, foolish and superficial because official Zionist records confirm that there was no Jewish "refugee" problem. Zionist records state that the first Israeli prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, decided to bring in Jews from Arab states although the Zionist movement had ruled it out. These documents also state that the founders of the Zionist movement planned to establish the Zionist entity by relying on Western Jews only, but after World War II and what happened to Jews before and during the war, the Zionist movement decided it needed to displace Jews in Arab states in order to enhance the demographic presence of Jews in confronting the Palestinian population.

To this end, Ben-Gurion gave the following orders: First, sending Jewish Orientalists to Arab countries where Jews are present to gather information about them and then convince them to emigrate. Second, when it became apparent to Ben-Gurion that these missions were not as successful as he had hoped, he ordered Mossad to carry out terrorist attacks against Jews in the Arab world, such as booby-trapping and firebombing synagogues and assassinating Jewish leaders in order to terrorise Jews living there to persuade them to escape to the Zionist entity.

Israel is trying by all means to invent ways to justify its noncompliance with the demands of reaching a just political settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and more importantly recognising the right of Palestinian refugees to return to the homeland they were expelled from. "I am a Jewish refugee" campaign is one such attempt.

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.

Class E compartments form in response to ESCRT dysfunction in yeast due to hyperactivity of the Vps21 Rab GTPase

Advance Online Publication August 16, 2012 doi: 10.1242/?jcs.111310 The endosomal sorting complexes required for transport (ESCRTs) mediate the budding of intralumenal vesicles (ILVs) at late endosomes. ESCRT dysfunction causes drastic changes in endosome morphology, which are manifested in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by the formation of aberrant endosomes known as class E compartments. Except for the absence of ILVs, the mechanistic basis for class E compartment biogenesis is unknown. We used electron microscopy to examine endosomal morphology in response to transient ESCRT inactivation and recovery in yeast expressing the temperature-sensitive mutant vps4ts allele. Our results show class E compartments accumulate 4-fold the amount of membrane normally present at MVBs and that MVBs can form directly from class E compartments upon recovery of ESCRT function. We found class E compartment formation requires Vps21, which is orthologous to the Rab5A GTPase in metazoans that promotes fusion of endocytic vesicles with early endosomes and homotypic fusion of early endosomes with one another. We also determined that class E compartments accumulate GTP-bound Vps21 and its effector, CORVET. Ypt7, the yeast ortholog of Rab7 that in metazoans promotes fusion of late endosomes with lysosomes, also accumulates at class E compartments but without its effector, HOPS, signifying that Ypt7 at class E compartments is dysfunctional. These results suggest that failure to complete Rab5-Rab7 conversion is a consequence of ESCRT dysfunction, which results in Vps21 hyperactivity that drives the class E compartment morphology. Indeed, genetic disruption of Rab conversion without ESCRT dysfunction autonomously drives the class E compartment morphology without blocking ILV budding.

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.