The fall of Tunisia’s regime headed by Zine El Abidine Ben Alican have serious repercussions, said Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Silvan Shalom.
In an interview on Israeli radio Friday night, Shalom said that he comes from a family of Tunisian immigrants.
“I fear that we now stand before a new and very critical phase in the Arab world. If the current Tunisian regime collapses, it will not affect Israel’s present national security in a significant way,” he said. “But we can, however, assume that these developments would set a precedent that could be repeated in other countries, possibly affecting directly the stability of our system.”
Shalom added that if regimes neighbouring the Israeli state were replaced by democratic systems, Israeli national security might significantly be threatened. The new systems would defend or adopt agendas that are inherently opposed to Israeli national security, he said.
The deputy indicated that Israel and most of the Arab regimes have a common interest in fighting what he referred to as “Islamic fundamentalism” and its “radical” organisations which threaten Israel.
This threat, he added, is the reason behind much of the direct and indirect intelligence and security coordination between Israel and the Arab regimes.
Shalom emphasised that a democratic Arab world would end this present allegiance, because a democratic system would be governed by a public generally opposed to Israel.
At least Silvan is honest about Israel’s whole-hearted approval of tyranny, unlike the duplicitous US/EU condominium and vile PA collaborators. Ynet zioshill, Smadar Peri, starts laying groundwork to drive arabs back where zionists feel they belong – under the boot.
In Haaretz, Nutanyahoo chants the time-tested hasbaramantra of peace, stability and security, echoing the prevaricative US litany. Both perpetually fail to mention justice and equal rights as a precursor to their disingenuous outcomes. Again, Shalom was more forthright.
Let the righteous ostracism of the unjustifiable, inexcusable apartheid zionist entity continue and prosper until the criminal apartheid wall falls, the filthy Occupation ends and Palestinian people attain the civil and political rights enjoyed by Jewish Israelis in one democratic state in all of Palestine / Israel!
From an August 09 Wikileaks cable, Madeleine Albright, apologist for US genocide in Iraq, was once more elevated, this time within NATO:
(U) According to Rasmussen the twelve individuals were chosen in order represent a broad range of Allies, as well as to bring a broad range of skills and expertise to the job.
They are:
– Madeleine Albright as Chair of the Experts Group, the United States, former Secretary of State
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: 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)
The disgraceful US sanctions and its successive wars of plunder and aggression against Iraq have been highlighted through Wikileaks’ publication of the relevant cable chronicling April Glaspie’s duplicitous ‘Green Light’ to Saddam. A year after the deranged Albright made her appalling statement, she was confirmed by the US Senate as Clinton’s Secretary of State.
Albright has just published her memoirs, Madam Secretary, in which she clarifies her statement. Here’s what she writes:
I must have been crazy; I should have answered the question by reframing it and pointing out the inherent flaws in the premise behind it. Saddam Hussein could have prevented any child from suffering simply by meeting his obligations…. As soon as I had spoken, I wished for the power to freeze time and take back those words. My reply had been a terrible mistake, hasty, clumsy and wrong. Nothing matters more than the lives of innocent people. I had fallen into the trap and said something I simply did not mean. That was no one’s fault but my own. (p. 275)
In the paragraph before this one she complains about the 60 Minutes report because “little effort was made to explain Saddam’s culpability, his misuse of Iraqi resources, or the fact that we were not embargoing medicine or food.”
When one reviews the facts, it is clear that Albright’s explanation is woefully inadequate. First, it contains an apparent contradiction. She says food and medicine were not embargoed, but then she says Saddam Hussein could have avoided the suffering “simply by meeting his obligations.” Does that mean more food would have been available had Hussein done what the U.S. government wanted? If so, weren’t American officials at least partly responsible for the harm done to the Iraqi people? Hussein certainly did not let his people starve. The New York Times and Washington Post have reported that in answer to the sanctions, Saddam Hussein maintained an elaborate food-rationing program for rich and poor, presumably to hold the loyalty of the Iraqi people, which the sanctions were supposedly intended to dissolve. Iraqis are reported to be reluctant to give up the program even though Hussein is gone and the sanctions are over.
Albright is being disingenuous. Although food wasn’t formally embargoed when the sanctions began in 1990, Iraq was hampered in importing it because initially Iraqi oil couldn’t be exported. No exports, no imports. The UN’s “oil for food” program, started six years later, after Hussein dropped his opposition, was supposed to remedy that. But it didn’t entirely. Counterpunch.org reported in 1999, “Proceeds from such oil sales are banked in New York…. Thirty-four percent is skimmed off for disbursement to outside parties with claims on Iraq, such as the Kuwaitis, as well as to meet the costs of the UN effort in Iraq. A further thirteen percent goes to meet the needs of the Kurdish autonomous area in the north.” With the remaining limited amount of money, the Iraqi government could order “food, medicine, medical equipment, infrastructure equipment to repair water and sanitation” and other things. But — and here’s the rub — the U.S. government could veto or delay any items ordered. And it did.
As Joy Gordon reported in the November 2001 Harper’s,
The United States has fought aggressively throughout the last decade to purposefully minimize the humanitarian goods that enter the country…. Since August 1991 the United States has blocked most purchases of materials necessary for Iraq to generate electricity, as well as equipment for radio, telephone, and other communications. Often restrictions have hinged on the withholding of a single essential element, rendering many approved items useless. For example, Iraq was allowed to purchase a sewage-treatment plant but was blocked from buying the generator necessary to run it; this in a country that has been pouring 300,000 tons of raw sewage daily into its rivers.
For Albright to say that food and medicine were not embargoed is to evade the fact that critical public-health needs could not be addressed because of the sanctions. Preventing a society from purifying its water and treating its sewage is a particularly brutal way to inflict harm, especially on its children. Disease was rampant, and infant mortality rose because of the sanctions. Let’s not forget that destruction of Iraq’s infrastructure was a deliberate aim of the U.S. bombing during the 1991 Gulf War.
No wonder two UN humanitarian coordinators quit over the sanctions. As one of them, Denis Halliday, said when he left in 1998, “I’ve been using the word ‘genocide’ because this is a deliberate policy to destroy the people of Iraq. I’m afraid I have no other view.”
Albright now writes that her answer to Stahl was “crazy” and that she regretted it “as soon as [she] had spoken.” Yet she did not take back her words between 1996 and Sept. 11, 2001. According to journalist Matt Welch, after being plagued by student protesters she “quietly” expressed regret for her statement in a speech at the University Southern California shortly after 9/11. But neither her office nor the Clinton administration issued a prominent clarification to the American people or the world. Could that be because her initial answer was sincere and that her belated apology was issued with her legacy in mind? We can be sure of one thing: word of her response spread throughout the Arab world. Maybe even among some of the 9/11 terrorists.
‘JONATHAN HOLMES: The Soviet Union was the main enemy in the ’70s and early ’80s. But there were others too. In 1979, a certain Saddam Hussein became dictator in Baghdad. That year in the Pentagon, Paul Wolfowitz was studying America’s war plans for the Persian Gulf. He and his assistant Dennis Ross warned that the new Iraqi leader could soon become a threat to the oil-rich Gulf States.
DENNIS ROSS, FORMER US MIDDLE EAST NEGOTIATOR: At that point, the Arab neighbours were looking at Iraq as a kind of bulwark against the Iranians. We were looking beyond that, saying, “Look, we’re not so sure that Iraq has such benign intentions towards its neighbours. And if it becomes very powerful, we’re going to find that it may use its power either directly or coercively.”
JONATHAN HOLMES: You actually recommended effectively setting up what became Central Command, didn’t you?
DENNIS ROSS: Absolutely. Much of what we subsequently did in the Gulf and the basis for what we even do today was drawn from that study which Paul directed.
JONATHAN HOLMES: But within a year, a much more dangerous challenge had appeared in the Gulf. The Iranian Revolution replaced America’s closest friend, the Shah, with a charismatic and implacable enemy, the Ayatollah Khomeini. As Saddam Hussein fought a bloody eight-year war against Iran, the Reagan Administration overcame its moral distaste for tyrants. He was treated as a favoured American ally.
PHYLLIS BENNIS, INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES: Throughout the1980s, it was United States resources from a…particularly from a country right here outside of Washington, DC, a small company called the American Type Culture Collection, that sold Iraq the seed stock for biological weapons, the seed stock for E. coli, for anthrax, for botulism, for a host of horrific diseases. And even at that time, it was known that Iraq had used chemical weapons against Iranian troops and against Kurdish civilians. And yet, Donald Rumsfeld, who was then a special envoy of President Reagan, went to Baghdad simply to shake hands with Saddam Hussein and urge the reopening of full diplomatic relations.’
RICE: And tonight, we gather to acknowledge this remarkable truth: The future belongs to liberty, fueled by markets in trade, protected by the rule of law and propelled by the fundamental rights of the individual. Information and knowledge can no longer be bottled up by the state. Prosperity flows to those who can tap the genius of their people.
…
George W. Bush will never allow America and our allies to be blackmailed. And make no mistake about it, blackmail is what the outlaw states seeking long-range ballistic missiles have in mind.
Ben Ali, cruel, corrupt dictator of Tunisia for the past 23 years, has fled to Saudi Arabia where he’s esconced with his kindred American-sponsored oppressors and nutjobs. Viva Tunisia, Abajo con La Bestia, Tierra y Libertad!
Being well-enmeshed in the social media arena, I have perceived continuous international solidarity for the Tunisian revolution, with people’s liberation movements against injustice across the Middle East and elsewhere that tyranny blooms darkly. Yet while information, communication and cyberactivism essentially grease the wheels of change, it is suffering people under the boot who put their lives at risk on the front line, doing the really heavy lifting and organisation.
Few commentators outside the African/Middle East region have examined the impact of “Mohamed Bouazizi, the young Tunisian who set himself on fire in protest against unemployment and poverty” who “has become a symbol of Tunisian sacrifices for freedom”, or extolled the involvement of Tunisian trade unions, grassroots solidarity movements and opposition parties. As Qunfuz notes:
The dictator, thief and Western client Zein al-Abdine Ben Ali, beloved until a few hours ago in Paris and Washington, has been driven from Tunisia. His reign was ended not by a military or palace coup but by an extraordinarily broad-based popular movement which has brought together trades unions and professional associations, students and schoolchildren, the unemployed and farmers, leftists, liberals and intelligent Islamists, men and women. One of the people’s most prominent slogans will resonate throughout the Arab world and beyond: la khowf ba’ad al-yowm, or No Fear From Now On.
No one has a hand in the success of this revolution except the people of Tunisia , no Islamists nor communists , it was a pure people’s action. Those who only woke up on the revolution last Friday have these lame excuses and explanations because they did not follow the matter since the 17th of December 2010. I am proud to say that I have followed it since the beginning ,this is a real people’s revolution. The people of the world do not understand what is happening because it happened too fast. The Tunisian people are highly educated , they have the highest level of literacy in the Arab world and Africa combined together , they know their rights very well and they have suffered a lot. They know what they know and did.
With a tangible, similar grassroots movement for liberation within Egypt and elsewhere, Mubarak and his fellow puppet dictators must be very nervous indeed. How will the neocolonial empire regard the potential tumbling of its house of cards? what of the actions of the Israeli coloniser if Egypt follows the Tunisian trajectory? would Israel then shift its convenient ‘existential threat’ tactic to focus on Egypt rather than Iran?
Remembering Muriawec’s Grand Strategy “Iraq is the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot, Egypt the prize” theorem which ignited some in the Pentagon and inspired neozioconservatives, what are these dark forces ruminating? will the empire choose to relinquish power and opt for sleazy neoliberal ‘polite rape’ or are we heading toward a stark regional standoff where it is increasingly exposed and isolated as the major hand supporting tyranny?
The imperial entity and its cronies supported the Tunisian dictatorship, as it was considered to be a reliable partner in the duplicitous ‘war on terrorism’.
During a 2004 visit by Ben Ali to the White House, in advance of Tunisia’s hosting of an Arab League summit, George Bush, the then US president, praised his guest as an ally in the war on terrorism, and praised Tunisia’s reforms in “press freedom” and the holding of “free and competitive elections”.
The same was repeated in 2008 by Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, who praised the improved “sphere of liberties” when human rights abuses were rampant in Tunisia. In once instance, at least 200 people were prosecuted against the backdrop of socio-economic protests in one southern mining town, Redhayef.
When certain European officials criticised Tunisia’s human rights record, they generally praised its economic performance.
For US and European leaders, Tunisia’s deposed president had been considered a staunch ally in the war on terrorism and against Islamist extremism.
In solidarity, we can keep reminding each other through many convenient means that the main game is for money, impunity, power positioning and control of resources against equal human rights, liberty and justice. Unless power is wrested from the ruling class, unless all are equally subject to the rule of law, the cards have merely been shuffled.
WikiLeaks today condemned calls from the chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security to “strangle the viability” of WikiLeaks by placing the publisher and its editor-in-chief, Julian Assange, on a US “enemies list” normally reserved for terrorists and dictators.
Placement on the US “Specially Designated National and Blocked Persons List” would criminalize US companies who deal with WikiLeaks or its editor. “The U.S. government simply cannot continue its ineffective piecemeal approach of responding in the aftermath of Wikileaks’ damage,” King wrote in a letter to the Secretary of the US Treasury, Geithner. “The U.S. government should be making every effort to strangle the viability of Assange’s organization.”
’The Homeland Security Committee chair Peter T. King wants to put a Cuban style trade embargo around the truth—forced on US citizens at the point of a gun,’ said Julian Assange.
’WikiLeaks is a publishing organization. It is time to cut through the bluster. There is no allegation by the US government or any other party, that WikiLeaks has hurt anyone, at any time during its four-year publishing history, as a result of anything it has published. Very few news organizations can say as much.’
’WikiLeaks has “terrorized” politicians from Kenya to Kansas over the last four years. Quite a few have lost office as a result. That doesn’t mean we are “terrorists”—it means we doing our job. We intend to “terrorize” Peter King, Hillary Clinton, corrupt CEOs and all the rest for many years to come, because that is what the people of the world demand.’
King noted that some U.S. companies had voluntarily cut off ties to Wikileaks, but that a New York publisher had recently agreed to pay Assange for an autobiography. Assange has said the eventual book royalties would help ’keep Wikileaks afloat’.
’By targeting WikiLeaks and the US publisher Knopf for economic censorship, King reveals his abiding hatred for the US constitution. When the founding fathers wrote, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”, they did not provide an exception for blustering fools like Peter T. King.’
Electronic Intifada highlights the fate of another casualty of Israel’s hideous siege on Gaza – the murder of sick 20 year old Anas Saleh by Israel’s official siege flunkeys.
Meanwhile, Palestine-based human rights organizations have called for a criminal investigation into the death of a 20-year-old Gaza resident, as Israeli officials prevented him from leaving Gaza in order to receive life-saving medical treatment for advanced liver disease.
Several human rights organizations — including the Gaza-based Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights, Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel — have demanded prosecution against Israeli officials for their culpability in his death. In a public statement, the organizations report that Israeli authorities had known about Saleh’s critical medical needs, and had denied his permit to leave Gaza nevertheless (“Human rights organizations demand criminal investigations into the death…,” 6 January 2011).
“… [T]he denial of an exit permit in these circumstances is an act against the legal obligation to provide medical treatment to save the life of the patient, an act which brought about, or at least hastened, the death of the deceased,” the statement read. “The aforementioned act, or failure, raises the suspicion of manslaughter, and/or causing death by negligence …”
If Im Tirzu has its way, there will be no ‘leftwing’ human rights organisations to report on Israel’s crimes against humanity. As usual, this ziofascist organisation omits to mention the massive tax deductible donations received from the international community including Australia, for illegal apartheid Israeli settlements and other land theft by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Israel’s collective punishment of the people of Gaza is completely unacceptable and illegal.
In its report, PCHR states that by enforcing the blockade since June 2007, Israel is in grave violation of international law and reiterates that “nothing substantial has changed” since Israel’s alleged “easing” of the closure in June 2010.
“The closure is prohibited as a form of collective punishment and results in the infliction of great suffering on the civilian population, which is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions,” PCHR states in the introduction to the 102-page report. “It is a crime that entails individual criminal responsibility for those involved in this policy at various levels, especially at the level of planning, organization and active implementation of the closure. Ultimately, the closure may amount to persecution, which is a crime against humanity.”
PCHR stated that the international community is mandated to take action to “put an end to the illegal closure of Gaza, which is inherently illegal and criminal in its nature.”
“By failing to do so,” PCHR added, “the international community bears responsibility for the intentionally manufactured socio-economical crisis that is progressively destroying Gaza, and depriving its people of their most fundamental human rights and dignity.”
And as for us? we’re still flooded in. If it doesn’t rain tonight, we’ll doubtless be able to escape our paradise to collect the mail tomorrow morning. Not so lucky are the people of Brisbane who are awaiting a flood peak at 4 a.m. tomorrow morning. Please stay safe, don’t take chances and use your brains!
Ben Ali, cruel, corrupt dictator of Tunisia for the past 23 years, has 