Mijn hersenspinsels en gedachtekronkels

Een democratische omwenteling in de Arabische Wereld? Deel 9– 9 ثورة ديمقراطية في العالم العربي؟ جزء


nieuws en artikelenoverzicht van de actuele gebeurtenissen in de Arabische wereld deel 9 (zie ook deel 1, deel 2, deel 3, deel 4, deel 5deel 6, deel 7 en deel 8)



Voor de nieuwste ontwikkelingen, bekijk hieronder: 

Al-Jazeera English live


Palestinian Authority closes Al-Jazeera office

klik op bovenstaand logo


Gaddafi loses more Libyan cities


Protesters wrest control of more cities as unrest sweeps African nation despite Muammar Gaddafi’s threat of crackdown.

Last Modified: 23 Feb 2011 17:36 GMT
Muammar Gaddafi, Libya’s long-standing ruler, has reportedly lost control of more cities as anti-government protests continue to sweep the African nation despite his threat of a brutal crackdown.Protesters in Misurata said on Wednesday they had wrested the western city from government control. In a statement on the internet, army officers stationed in the city pledged “total support for the protesters”.The protesters also seemed to be in control of much of the country’s east, and an Al Jazeera correspondent, reporting from the city of Tobruk, 140km from the Egyptian border, said there was no presence of security forces.”From what I’ve seen, I’d say the people of eastern Libya are the ones in control,” Hoda Abdel-Hamid, our correspondent, said.She said there were no officials manning the border when the Al Jazeera team crossed into Libya.‘People in charge’“All along the border, we didn’t see one policeman, we didn’t see one soldier and people here told us they [security forces] have all fled or are in hiding and that the people are now in charge, meaning all the way from the border, Tobruk, and then all the way up to Benghazi.


“People tell me it’s also quite calm in Bayda and Benghazi. They do say, however, that ‘militias’  are roaming around, especially at night. They describe them as African men, they say they speak French so they think they’re from Chad.”

Major-General Suleiman Mahmoud, the commander of the armed forces in Tobruk, told Al Jazeera that the troops led by him had switched loyalties.

 “We are on the side of the people,” he said. “I was with him [Gaddafi] in the past but the situation has changed – he’s a tyrant.”

Benghazi, Libya’s second largest city, was where people first rose up in revolt against Gaddafi’s 42-year long rule more than a week ago. The rebellion has since spread to other cities despite heavy-handed attempts by security forces to quell the unrest.

With authorities placing tight restrictions on the media, flow of news from Libya is at best patchy. But reports filtering out suggest at least 300 people have been killed in the violence.

But Franco Frattini, the Italian foreign minister, said there were “credible’ reports that at least 1,000 had died in the clampdown.

Defiant Gaddafi

Amid the turmoil, a defiant Gaddafi has vowed to quash the uprising.

He delivered a rambling speech on television on Tuesday night, declaring he would die a martyr in Libya, and threatening to purge opponents “house by house” and “inch by inch”.

He blamed the uprising in the country on “Islamists”, and warned that an “Islamic emirate” has already been set up in Bayda and Derna, where he threatened the use of extreme force.


Twitter Reaction

Libya Protests

Jnoubiyeh profile

Jnoubiyeh The death toll keeps rising in #Libya. At least 500 Libyans are estimated to have been murdered by #Gaddafi since the uprising began. #Feb17 3 days ago · reply 700+ recent retweets

NSlayton profile

NSlayton Saif #Gaddafi just blamed #Canada for chaos. I think that’s the first time someone’s blamed Canada for war outside of South Park. #libya 3 days ago · reply 1000+ recent retweets

AJELive profile

AJELive Al Jazeera receiving reports live ammunition being fired on protesters marching on #Gaddafi compound in Tripoli #Libya http://aje.me/fwtYjF 2 days ago · reply 100+ recent retweets

He urged Libyans to take to the streets and show their support for their leader.

Several hundred government loyalists heeded his call in Tripoli, the capital, on Wednesday, staging a pro-Gaddafi rally in the city’s Green Square.

Fresh gunfire was reported in the capital on Wednesday, after Gaddafi called on his supporters to take back the streets from anti-government protesters.

But Gaddafi’s speech has done little to stem the steady stream of defections from his side.

Libyan diplomats across the world have either resigned in protest at the use of violence against citizens, or renounced Gaddafi’s leadership, saying that they stand with the protesters.

Late on Tuesday night, General Abdul-Fatah Younis, the country’s interior minister, became the latest government official to stand down, saying that he was resigning to support what he termed as the “February 17 revolution”.

He urged the Libyan army to join the people and their “legitimate demands”.

On Wednesday, Youssef Sawani, a senior aide to Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, one of Muammar Gaddafi’s sons, resigned from his post “to express dismay against violence”, Reuters reported.

Earlier, Mustapha Abdeljalil, the country’s justice minister, had resigned in protest at the “excessive use of violence” against protesters, and diplomat’s at Libya’s mission to the United Nations called on the Libyan army to help remove “the tyrant Muammar Gaddafi”.

A group of army officers has also issued a statement urging soldiers to “join the people” and remove Gaddafi from power.





Al Jazeera and agencies



Gaddafi struggles to keep control


Pro-democracy protesters take over eastern part of the country, as state structure appears to be disintegrating.

Last Modified: 24 Feb 2011 12:15 GMT
Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, is struggling to maintain his authority in the country, as major swathes of territory in the east of the vast North African country now appear to be under the control of pro-democracy protesters.On Thursday, state television reported that he was due to make a public address to residents of Az Zawiyah, a town that saw fierce clashes between pro- and anti-government forces through the day.Ali, an eyewitness to the shooting, told Al Jazeera by phone that soldiers began shooting at the protesters with heavy artillery at around 6am and had continued for 5 hours.”They were trying to kill the people, not terrify them,” he said, explaining that the soldiers had aimed at the protesters’ head and chest.He estimated as many as 100 protesters had been killed. Approximately 400 people had been injured and were now in the town’s hospital. He said he had filmed the bodies after the shooting had stopped, but was unable to send the footage because internet access has been cut off.”The people here didn’t ask for anything, they just asked for a constitution and democracy and freedom, they didn’t want to shoot anyone,” he said.Gunfire could be heard in the background as Ali spoke, and he said the protesters were expecting the soldiers to launch another direct attack on Martyrs’ Square later in the evening.Despite the risk of more shooting, he said he and the other protesters would continue their protest, even if it cost their lives.Earlier, a Libyan army unit led by Gaddafi’s ally, Naji Shifsha, blasted the minaret of a mosque being occupied by protesters in Az Zawiyah, according to witnesses. They said that protesters had sustained , but exact figures remain unclear.


According to witnesses, pro-Gaddafi forces also attacked the town of Misrata, which was under the control of protesters. They told Al Jazeera that “revolutionaries had driven out the security forces”, who had used “heavy machine guns and anti-aircraft guns”.

They said the pro-Gaddafi forces were called the “Hamza brigade”.

Similar clashes have also been reported in the cities of Sabha in the south, and Sabratha, near Tripoli, which is in the west.

Also on Thursday, anti-government protesters appeared to be in control of the country’s eastern coastline, running from the Egyptian border through to the cities of Tobruk and Benghazi, the country’s second largest city.

Franco Frattini, the Italian foreign minister, said on Wednesday that protesters also held the city of Cyrenaica.

Other towns that appear to no longer be under Gaddafi’s control include Derna and Bayda, among others across the country’s east.

Reuters news agency, quoting Egyptian nationals fleeing the town of Zoura in the country’s west, reported that anti-government protesters had taken over the city.

Ahmed Gadhaf al-Dam, one of Gaddafi’s top security official and a cousin, defected on Wednesday, saying in a statement issued by his Cairo office that he left the country “in protest and to show disagreement” with “grave violations to human rights and human and international laws”.

Al-Dam was travelling to Syria from Cairo on a private plane, sources told Al Jazeera. He denied allegations that he was asked to recruit Egyptian tribes on the border to fight in Libya and said he went to Egypt in protest against his government’s used of violence.

‘People in control’

Soldiers in the cities controlled by the protesters have switched sides, filling the void and no longer supporting Gaddafi’s government. In a statement posted on the internet, army officers stationed in Misurata pledged their “total support” for the protesters.

Major-General Suleiman Mahmoud, the commander of the armed forces in Tobruk, earlier told Al Jazeera that the troops led by him had switched loyalties.

“We are on the side of the people,” he said. “I was with him [Gaddafi] in the past but the situation has changed – he’s a tyrant.”

Thousands gathered in Tobruk to celebrate their taking of the city on Wednesday, with Gaddafi opponents waving flags of the old monarchy, honking cars and firing in the sky.

“In 42 years, he turned Libya upside-down,” said Hossi, an anti-government protester there. “Here the leader is a devil. There is no one in the world like him.”

Armed opponents of the government are also patrolling the highway that runs along the country’s Mediterranean coast. Al Jazeera’s correspondent said that even in the towns under anti-government forces’ control, gangs of pro-Gaddafi militias had been reported to be roaming the streets at night.

Follow more of Al Jazeera’s special coverage here 

“From what I’ve seen, I’d say the people of eastern Libya are the one’s in control,” Hoda Abdel-Hamid, Al Jazeera’s correspondent who is in Libya, reported. She said that no Libyan officials had been manning the border where Al Jazeera’s team crossed into the country.

Capital paralysed

Tripoli, the Libyan capital, meanwhile, is said to be virtually locked down, and streets remained mostly deserted, even though Gaddafi had called for his supporters to come out in force on Wednesday and “cleanse” the country from the anti-government demonstrators.

Libyan authorities said food supplies were available as “normal” in the shops and urged schools and public services to restore regular services, although economic activity and banks have been paralysed since Tuesday.

London-based newspaper the Independent reported, however, that petrol and food prices in the capital have trebled as a result of serious shortages.

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, Muammar Gaddafi’s son, said on Thursday that an international investigation committee and media will be invited to tour Tripoli. During a tour of a state television channel, he emphasised that life was “normal” in the city.


Twitter Reaction

Libya Protests

ABCnewsIntern profile

ABCnewsIntern Not sure who is making more sense, #Assange or #Gaddafi. #libya #wikileaks about 1 minute ago · reply

habibahamid profile

habibahamid RT @AhmadHKh: I feel bad for any person who is doing instant translation of this speech #WTF #Libya #Gaddafi #Feb17 about 1 minute ago · reply


  12 new tweets

Echo2Zs profile

Echo2Zs It’s not the drugs, #Gaddafi, it’s the #KFC, the Meal of Champions! #Libya about 1 minute ago · reply

tweetableman profile

tweetableman RT @AlArabiya_Eng: “I only have a ‘moral’ power on Libya”, Gaddafi says #AlArabiya #gaddafi #Libya about 1 minute ago · reply

Jnoubiyeh profile

Jnoubiyeh The death toll keeps rising in #Libya. At least 500 Libyans are estimated to have been murdered by #Gaddafi since the uprising began. #Feb17 4 days ago · reply 700+ recent retweets

On Wednesday, an army general told Al Jazeera that two pilots had ejected from their air force jet near the town of Agdabia after refusing to bomb civilians in Benghazi, which has been a stronghold of the anti-government protesters.

In addition to desertions by many army troops, Gaddafi has also been faced with several diplomats in key posts, as well as cabinet ministers, refusing to recognise his authority and calling for him to be removed.

Hundreds killed

Foreign governments, meanwhile, continue to rush to evacuate their citizens, with thousands flooding to the country’s borders with Tunisia and Egypt. The United States, Britain, France, Italy, Turkey, China, France and India, among others, have made arrangements for their nationals to leave the country.

James Bays, Al Jazeera’s correspondent, reported that there was “a desperate scene at Tripoli’s airport”. He said that there was a “log-jam” there, with some saying that they have been trying to leave the country for three days.

“The airport is still very firmly under the control of Gaddafi’s people,” he reported, adding that secret police are patrolling the area, and several checkpoints have been set up on the road leading there.

The Paris-based International Federation for Human Rights put the number of people killed at 640, though Nouri el-Mismari, a former protocol chief to Gaddafi, and Frattini, the Italian foreign minister, put the number closer to 1,000.

Denying these figures as “fabrications,” the Libyan interior ministry on Wednesday said the death toll since the violence began is only 308 people.

Since making statements against Gaddafi, el-Mismari’s lawyer has said that his daughters, who live in Libya, were “abducted … and forcibly taken to the [state] television [station] to deny their father’s statements”.



Gaddafi blames unrest on al-Qaeda


Libyan leader says protesters are young people being manipulated by al-Qaeda, as violence continues across the country.

Last Modified: 24 Feb 2011 16:02 GMT
Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, has said in a speech on Libyan state television that al-Qaeda is responsible for the uprising in Libya.”It is obvious now that this issue is run by al-Qaeda,” he said, speaking by phone from an unspecified location on Thursday.He said that the protesters were young people who were being manipulated by al-Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden, and that many were doing so under the influence of drugs.”No one above the age of 20 would actually take part in these events,” he said. “They are taking advantage of the young age of these people [to commit violent acts] because they are not legally liable!”At the same time, the leader warned that those behind the unrest would be prosecuted in the country’s courts.

                       He called on Libyan parents to keep their children at home.

“How can you justify such misbehaviour from people who live in good neighbourhoods?” he asked.

The situation in Libya was different to Egypt or Tunisia he said, arguing that unlike people in the neighbouring countries, Libyans have “no reason to complain whatsoever”.

Libyans had easy access to low interest loans and cheap daily commodities, he argued. The one reform he did hint might be possible was a raise in salaries.

‘Symbolic’ leader

Gaddafi argued that he was a purely “symbolic” leader with no real political power, comparing his role to that played by Queen Elizabeth II in England.

He also warned that the protests could cut off Libya oil production. “If [the protesters] do not go to work regularly, the flow of oil will stop,” he said.

Ibrahim Jibreel, a Libyan political activist, said that the fact that Gaddafi was speaking by phone showed that he did not have the courage to appear publically, and proved that he remained “under self-imposed house arrest in Tripoli”.

Jibreel said there were similarities between Thursday’s speech and one Gaddafi gave earlier in the week.

“The theme of people who have taken pills and hallucinations is one that continues to occur,” he said.
Jibreel noted Gaddafi’s reference to loans and that he would reconsider salaries. “I think that there [are] some concessions that he wants to make, in his own weird way,” he said.


Gaddafi is struggling to maintain his authority in the country, as major swathes of territory in the east of the vast North African country now appear to be under the control of pro-democracy protesters.

Follow more of Al Jazeera’s special coverage here 

Ali, an eyewitness to the shooting, told Al Jazeera by phone that soldiers began shooting at peaceful protesters on Martyrs’ Square with heavy artillery at around 6am and had continued for 5 hours.

“They were trying to kill the people, not terrify them,” he said, explaining that the soldiers had aimed at the protesters’ heads and chests.

He estimated as many as 100 protesters had been killed. Approximately 400 people had been injured and were now in the town’s hospital. He said he had filmed the bodies after the shooting had stopped, but was unable to send the footage because internet access has been cut off.

“The people here didn’t ask for anything, they just asked for a constitution and democracy and freedom, they didn’t want to shoot anyone,” he said.

Gunfire could be heard in the background as Ali spoke, and he said the protesters were expecting the soldiers to launch another direct attack on Martyrs’ Square later in the evening.

Despite the risk of more shooting, he said he and the other protesters would continue their protest, even if it cost their lives.

Mosque ‘attacked’

Also on Thursday, a Libyan army unit led by Gaddafi’s ally, Naji Shifsha, blasted the minaret of a mosque being occupied by protesters in Az Zawiyah, according to witnesses.


Twitter Reaction

Libya Protests

libyafreedomnew profile

libyafreedomnew Strong differences between Gaddafi’s sons … about the father prefers to Saif al-Islam and make it in the interface..#Libya #Gaddafi 5 minutes ago · reply

NadeenR profile

NadeenR #Gaddafi has shares in #Juventus football club. Seriously. #LOL #Libya 4 minutes ago · reply

nihonmama profile

nihonmama RT @libyafreedomnew: Resigned Libyan Justice Minister: There’s no presence for AlQaeda or any terroristic cells here. #Libya #Gaddafi 4 minutes ago · reply


  6 new tweets

DebateFaith profile

DebateFaith – I bet Qaddafi and Pir Pagara have the same ancestors. #Pakistan #Libya: – I bet Qaddafi and Pi… http://bit.ly/h603oe #libya #gaddafi 5 minutes ago · reply

DebateFaith profile

DebateFaith RT @ChangeInLibya: Don’t put sanctions on #libya government. Impose a no fly zone ASAP and start… http://bit.ly/hT8z9v #libya #gaddafi 5 minutes ago · reply

According to witnesses, pro-Gaddafi forces also attacked the town of Misrata, which was under the control of protesters.

They told Al Jazeera that “revolutionaries had driven out the security forces”, who had used “heavy machine guns and anti-aircraft guns”.

They said the pro-Gaddafi forces were called the “Hamza brigade”.

Similar clashes have also been reported in the cities of Sabha in the south, and Sabratha, near Tripoli, which is in the west.

Anti-government protesters appeared to be in control of the country’s eastern coastline, running from the Egyptian border through to the cities of Tobruk and Benghazi, the country’s second largest city.

Ahmed Gadhaf al-Dam, one of Gaddafi’s top security official and a cousin, defected on Wednesday evening, saying in a statement issued by his Cairo office that he left the country “in protest and to show disagreement” with “grave violations to human rights and human and international laws”.

Al-Dam was travelling to Syria from Cairo on a private plane, sources told Al Jazeera. He denied allegations that he was asked to recruit Egyptian tribes on the border to fight in Libya and said he went to Egypt in protest against his government’s used of violence.

Communications blocked

Libyan authorities are working hard to prevent news of the events in the country from reaching the outside world.

Thuraya, a satellite phone provider based in the United Arab Emirates, has faced continuous “deliberate inference” to its services in Libya, the company’s CEO told Al Jazeera.

Samer Halawi, the company’s CEO, said his company will be taking legal action against the Libyan authorities for the jamming of its satellite.

“This is unlawful and this in uncalled for,” he said.

The company’s engineers have had some success in combating the jamming, and operations were back on almost 70 per cent of the Libyan territory on Thursday, Halawi said. The blocking was coming from a location in Tripoli.

The Libyan government has blocked landline and wireless communications, to varying degrees, in recent days.

Some phone services were down again on Thursday. In the town of Az Zawiyah, phone lines were working but internet access was blocked.

Nazanine Moshri, reporting from the northern side of the Tunisian-Libyan border near the town of Ras Ajdir, said that security forces were confiscating cellphones and cameras from people crossing into Tunisia.

“The most important thing to them is to not allow any footage to get across the border into Tunisia,” she reported.

Capital paralysed

Tripoli, the Libyan capital, meanwhile, is said to be virtually locked down, and streets remained mostly deserted, even though Gaddafi had called for his supporters to come out in force on Wednesday and “cleanse” the country from the anti-government demonstrators.

Libyan authorities said food supplies were available as “normal” in the shops and urged schools and public services to restore regular services, although economic activity and banks have been paralysed since Tuesday.

London-based newspaper the Independentreported, however, that petrol and food prices in the capital have trebled as a result of serious shortages.

Foreign governments, meanwhile, continue to rush to evacuate their citizens, with thousands flooding to the country’s borders with Tunisia and Egypt.

Al Jazeera and agencies



Gaddafi addresses crowd in Tripoli


Libyan leader speaks to supporters in the capital’s Green Square, saying he will arm people against protesters.

Last Modified: 25 Feb 2011 18:00 GMT
 Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, has appeared in Tripoli’s Green Square, to address a crowd of his supporters in the capital.”We can defeat any aggression if necessary and arm the people,” Gaddafi said, in footage that was aired on Libyan state television on Friday.”I am in the middle of the people.. we will fight … we will defeat them if they want … we will defeat any foreign aggression.


“Dance … sing and get ready … this is the spirit … this is much better than the lies of the Arab propaganda,” he said.

The speech, which also referred to Libya’s war of independence with Italy, appeared to be aimed at rallying what remains of his support base, with specific reference to the country’s youth.

His last speech, on Thursday evening had been made by phone, leading to speculation about his physical condition.

The footage aired on Friday, however, showed the leader standing above the square, waving his fist as he spoke.

Tarik Yousef, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute in Washington, told Al Jazeera that most of the individuals on Green Square are genuine Gaddafi supporters.

“Most of these people have known nothing else but Gaddafi. They don’t know any other leader. And many of them stand to lose when Gaddafi falls,” Yousef said.

“I am not completely surprised that they still think that he is the right man for Libya. What is striking is that [Gaddafi] did not talk about all the liberated cities in his country.

“This was a speech intended show his defiance and to rally against what he calls foreign interference. But even his children have admitted that the east of the country is no longer under the regime’s control.”

Anti-Gaddafi protesters shot

Gaddafi’s speech came on a day when tens of thousands of Libyans in the capital and elsewhere in the country took to the streets calling for an end to his rule.

As demonstrations began in Tripoli following the midday prayer, security forces loyal to Gaddafi reportedly began firing on them. There was heavy gun fire in various Tripoli districts including Fashloum, Ashour, Jumhouria and Souq Al, sources told Al Jazeera.

“The security forces fired indiscriminately on the demonstrators,” said a resident of one of the capital’s eastern suburbs.

“There were deaths in the streets of Sug al-Jomaa,” the resident said.

The death toll since the violence began remains unclear, though on Thursday Francois Zimeray, France’s top human rights official, said it could be as high as 2,000 people killed.

Dissent reaches mosques

Violence flared up even before the Friday sermons were over, according to a source in Tripoli.

“People are rushing out of mosques even before Friday prayers are finished because the state-written sermons were not acceptable, and made them even more angry,” the source said.

Libyan state television aired one such sermon on Friday, in an apparent warning to protesters.

“As the Prophet said, if you dislike your ruler or his behaviour, you should not raise your sword against him, but be patient, for those who disobey the rulers will die as infidels,” the speaker told his congregation in Tripoli.

During Friday prayers a cleric in the town of Mselata, 80km to the east of Tripoli, called for the people to fight back.

Immediately after the prayers, more than more than 2,000 people, some of them armed with rifles taken from the security forces, headed towards Tripol to demand the fall of Gaddafi, Al Jazeera’s Nazanine Moshiri reported.

The group made it as far as the city of Tajoura, where it was stopped by a group loyal to Gaddafi.

They were checked by foreign, French-speaking mercenaries and gunfire was exchanged. There were an unknown number of casualties, Moshiri reported, based on information from witnesses who had reached on the Libyan-Tunisian border.

Special forces

People in eastern parts of the country, a region believed to be largely free from Gaddafi’s control, held protests in support for the demonstrations in the capital.

“Friday prayer in Benghazi have seen thousands and thousands on the streets. All the banners are for the benefit of the capital, [they are saying] ‘We’re with you, Tripoli.'” Al Jazeera’s Laurence Lee reported.

In the town of Derna, protesters held banners with the messages such as “We are one Tribe called Libya, our only capital is Tripoli, we want freedom of speech”.

Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Libya reported on Friday that army commanders in the east who had renounced Gaddafi’s leadership had told her that military commanders in the country’s west were beginning to turn against him.

They warned, however, that the Khamis Brigade, an army special forces brigade that is loyal to the Gaddafi family and is equipped with sophisticated weaponry, is currently still fighting anti-government forces.

The correspondent, who cannot be named for security reasons, said that despite the gains, people are anxious about what Gaddafi might do next, and the fact that his loyalists were still at large.

“People do say that they have broken the fear factor, that they have made huge territorial gains,” she said. “[Yet] there’s no real celebration or euphoria that the job has been done.”

Pro-democracy protesters attacked

On Friday morning, our correspondents reported that the town of Zuwarah was, according to witnesses, abandoned by security forces and completely in the hands of anti-Gaddafi protesters.

Checkpoints in the country’s west on roads leading to the Tunisian border, however, were still being controlled by Gaddafi loyalists.

In the east, similar checkpoints were manned by anti-Gaddafi forces, who had set up a “humanitarian aid corridor” as well as a communications corridor to the Egyptian border, our correspondent reported.

Follow more of Al Jazeera’s special coverage here 

Thousands massed in Az Zawiyah’s Martyr’s Square after the attack, calling on Gaddafi to leave office, and on Friday morning, explosions were heard in the city.

Witnesses say pro-Gaddafi forces were blowing up arms caches, in order to prevent anti-government forces from acquiring those weapons.

Clashes were also reported in the city of Misurata, located 200km east of Tripoli, where witnesses said a pro-Gaddafi army brigade attacked the city’s airport with mortars and rocket-propelled grenades.

They told Al Jazeera that pro-democracy protesters had managed to fight off that attack. “Revolutionaries have driven out the security forces,” they said, adding that “heavy machine guns and anti-aircraft guns” had been used against them.

Mohamed Senussi, a resident of Misurata, said calm had returned to the city after the “fierce battle” near the airport.

“The people’s spirits here are high, they are celebrating and chanting ‘God is Greatest’,” he told the Reuters news agency by telephone.

Another witness warned, however, that protesters in Misurata felt “isolated” as they were surrounded by nearby towns still in Gaddafi’s control.

Government loses oil terminals


Twitter Reaction

Libya Protests

Soloveo profile

Soloveo Dictator Muammar #Gaddafi stated that he “will fight until the very end.” #Libyans have bravely responded, “And so will we.” #Libya #Feb17 23 seconds ago · reply


  4 new tweets

kingst profile

kingst RT @s0mk: 正如那句话所说:“卡扎菲完成了不可能的任务:他让穆巴拉克显得高贵,让本.阿里显得就是一个天才…”摊上这么一个极品的主,利比亚人,唉…早点结束吧,流血够多了,够判不知道多少个反人类罪了… #Libya #Gaddafi about 1 minute ago · reply

parvezsharma profile

parvezsharma The surreal #Jamahiriya of #Libya unravels. For 40+years #Faustian tyrant #Gaddafi hung out w/ #Shaitan, the devil He now kills with relish. about 1 minute ago · reply

baraneshgh profile

baraneshgh hey, authorities in #italy #Turkey and #theUK #china #russia #venezuala, open yr eyes& look at this MONSTER, #Gaddafi, in #libya #benghazi 3 minutes ago · reply

Protesters and air force personnel who have renounced Gaddafi’s leadership also overwhelmed a nearby military base where Gaddafi loyalists were taking refuge, according to a medical official at the base.

They disabled air force fighter jets at the base so that they could not be used against protesters.

Soldiers helped anti-Gaddafi protesters take the oil terminal in the town of Berga, according to Reuters.

The oil refinery in Ras Lanuf has also halted its operations and most staff has left, according to a source in the company.

Support for Gaddafi within the country’s elite continues to decline. On Friday, Abdel Rahman Al Abar, Libya’s Chief Prosecutor, became one of the latest top officials to resign in protest over the bloodshed.

“What happened and is happening are massacres and bloodshed never witnessed by the Libyan people. The logic of power and violence is being imposed instead of seeking democratic, free, and mutual dialogue,” he said.

His comments came as UN’s highest human-rights body held a special session on Friday to discuss what it’s chief had earlier described as possible “crimes against humanity” by the Gaddafi government. 

Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, urged world leaders to “step in vigorously” to end the violent crackdown.

The United Nations Security Council was to hold a meeting on the situation in Libya later in the day, with sanctions the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over the country under Chapter VII of the UN charter on the table.

Al Jazeera and agencies


Anti-terrorism and uprisings


North African leaders have worked with the West against Islamists and migrants – becoming more repressive as a result.

Yasmine Ryan Last Modified: 25 Feb 2011 17:47 GMT
Security forces in Tunisia and other North African countries were armed and given incentives to become more repressive in the name of the fight against ‘terrorism’, activists argue [EPA]

The string of uprisings in North Africa have laid bare Western governments’ relationships with regimes in the region, which pro-democracy activists argue have long been fixated on anti-terrorism, immigration and oil.

Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, appears to be on the brink of joining Tunisia’s Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak – both ousted by their own people. In Algeria, meanwhile, Abdelaziz Bouteflika’s government is holding firm, clamping down on protests and carrying out limited reforms in a bid to lull anti-regime rage.

The four men have co-operated to varying degrees with the West in the post 9/11 era, offering their services against the perceived twin menaces of political Islam and migration from the African continent to Europe.

Salima Ghezali, a well-known Algerian journalist and rights activist, says that politicians have used these supposed threats to justify state violence. Elites in the West, she argues, have attempted to distract voters by playing up threats to security, whilst sidestepping debate on their economies. Their counterparts in the developing world have used the same arguments to draw attention away from “institutional chaos”.

“It is this chaos which is provoking and fuelling the anger of the people,” she says.

By focusing on security, leaders have found a means to legitimise state violence, withhold rights and freedoms and neglect political and social management, Ghezali says. “Violence has even become a means of social and political advancement. Murderers have become heroes and hold power in public institutions.”

Jeremy Keenan, a professorial research associate at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, agrees that the uprisings are, in some way, related to the prevalence of anti-terrorist policy.

“I think that whole ‘war on terror’ syndrome has had a potentially significant role in what we’re seeing today,” Keenan says. “These states have become more repressive in the knowledge that they have the backing of the West.”

Demographic disconnect

Many youthful protesters are no longer willing to swallow their leaders’ use of anti-colonialist ideology to justify their political power.

Far from fighting imperialism, these leaders, their opponents say, have been complicit with the West: Acting as its torturers, buying its arms and patrolling the Mediterranean Sea to stem the tides of young people desperate to flee their homelands. All were partners in the CIA’s controversial ‘extraordinary rendition programme’ and Libya has been a pro-active partner in a secretive Rome-Tripoli deal, signed in 2009, to intercept boats carrying migrants. In return for the sea patrols, Italy pledged to pay Libya $7bn over 20 years.

“The young generation of Algerians, and the not-so-young, don’t have any illusions about the convictions of their leaders,” Ghezali explains.

Despite being sceptical of their leaders’ ideological leanings, Ghezali says the youth do still respect authentic symbols of the Algerian War of Independence. Anti-government protesters in Libya have taken to waving the pre-Gaddafi, post-independence flag – a reference to the country’s struggle against colonial rule.

With the exception of Ben Ali, all of these leaders have been in government since before most of their people were born. Bouteflika, for example, first became a minister in 1962, yet rules over a country where the average age is 27, according to the CIA World Factbook. Gaddafi took power in 1969, while the average Libyan is just 24.

Playing the ‘Islamist card’

The region’s leaders have repeatedly tried to portray the current wave of uprisings as somehow terrorist-related.

In a recently released report, Martin Scheinin, the UN special rapporteur on the protection of human rights while countering terrorism, details how Tunisia’s counterterrorism laws and policies played a central part in the former government’s crushing of political opposition.

And, as Scheinin notes in an interview with Al Jazeera, this was the very language Ben Ali turned to when he responded to the Tunisian uprising.

“I think it is important that when the people started to revolt in Tunisia, the initial reaction by the president and by the government was to say this is terrorists,” the UN Rapporteur says.

Ben Ali accused demonstrators in the centre of the country of “unpardonable terrorist acts” on January 10, two days after Tunisian security forces had begun deliberately killing protesters in the centre of the country. The Libyan leader’s son, Saadi Gaddafi, told the Financial Times on Wednesday that bombing in the east of Libya was necessary because “thousands” of al-Qaeda fighters were taking control of the region. His father elaborated on these allegations in a speech on Thursday night, accusing Osama bin Laden of brainwashing, and even drugging, the country’s youth.

Ghezali points to Gaddafi’s most recent threats to end his co-operation on immigration, as well as his attempts to blame protests on al-Qaeda, as a particularly “ludicrous” example of what has become a standard form of blackmail.

Tunisian activists interviewed by Al Jazeera cited ending corruption and tyranny and the right to employment, democracy and freedom of expression as the motivations that drove their uprising, while Libyans likewise dismissed Gaddafi’s assertion that Osama bin Laden was working to incite dissent against his rule.

Keenan says that the absence of Islamist ideology in the protest movements has underlined the extent to which the “Islamist card” has been overplayed by politicians and the media. “These revolts have nothing much to do with Islamism, they are to do with young people fighting for their rights.

“All of these countries, to varying degrees, have exaggerated the menace of terrorism,” says the author of The Dark Sahara: America’s War on Terror in Africa.

The birth of an ideology

While it became most pronounced post-9/11, the West’s fear of the rise of political Islam in North Africa predates the ‘war on terror’ by a decade.


When Algeria embarked on its first democratic elections in the early 1990s, the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), was heading towards a likely victory.
Many commentators in the West feared Algeria would become the next Iran, and that political Islam might then become an unstoppable force, spreading to neighbouring countries.

The Algerian military staged a coup d’état and embarked on a “dirty war” to purge the country of the “Green Peril”. During the decade-long civil war that followed, 200,000 Algerians were killed, many by the security forces, and approximately 15,000 were forcibly disappeared.

Western governments were largely silent. In the case of France, in particular, support for the “eradication” campaign was explicit.

By early 2001, pressure for an investigation into the role of the security forces in fostering the violence was increasing, after a series of allegations that the Algerian security establishment had deliberately falsified terrorism to justify its own violence.

Then came the 9/11 attacks, and the ‘war on terror,’ and Algerian dissidents once again found themselves sidelined.

“After twenty years of security policy – including 10 years of war – Algerian society has been seriously traumatised,” Ghezali says, adding that the lack of justice or reconciliation has prevented many from being able to move on.

In contrast, post-January 14, Tunisia has opened a commission to investigate the human rights abuses committed by the security forces during the uprising and is seeking Ben Ali’s extradition from Saudi Arabia.

Libya’s deputy ambassador to the United Nations, meanwhile, is calling for the International Criminal Court to investigate Gaddafi for war crimes, while Navi Pillay, the UN human rights chief, is urging an international investigation into the violence against protesters.

Awkward baggage

The first suggestion that Western leaders may be moving to untangle themselves from the increasingly awkward baggage of their ‘war on terror’ ties to North Africa came during William Hague’s visit to Tunisia, on February 8, as the uprising in Egypt was well underway.

In response to a question from Al Jazeera, the British foreign secretary acknowledged that it was time to move beyond the anti-terrorism framework.

Hague has promised the UK will be moving beyond a security-centred relationship with Tunisia [Reuters] 

“I think now there is an opportunity for a much broader relationship than a security relationship,” he said.

Bolstering his comments came the announcement of an $8.1mn fund to support economic and political reform in North Africa and the Middle East.

Hague also distanced his government from Tunisia’s controversial anti-terrorism law, which has long drawn criticism from rights activists who argued that it was used to imprison political dissidents.

“We hope that legislation will comply with international laws on human rights, will respect freedom of expression, and of course we hope in any country that anti-terror laws are not used to stifle legitimate political debate and activity,” Hague said.

Yet even as the death toll in Libya continues to rise – possibly to over 1,000 – the anti-terrorist ideology is far from dismantled, as Gaddafi’s attempts to bring al-Qaeda into the equation suggest.

On Tuesday, Algeria lifted its controversial state of emergency, which had been in force since 1992 and which the government had argued was necessary to facilitate its fight against “terrorists”. Activists had long criticised the law, arguing that its real goal was to quell dissent and to extinguish the political freedoms that had been won by protesters in the wake of the October 1988 anti-government riots.

But the state of emergency is being replaced by new anti-terrorist legislation, meaning little genuine change. Protest marches will remain forbidden and the military will retain its contested right to intervene in domestic security enforcement.

A spokesperson for Britain’s Foreign and Commonwealth office said by telephone on Wednesday that Hague’s comments in Tunis also applied to any anti-terrorist legislation in Algeria. However, Keenan points to Algeria’s role as an “absolutely critical ally” for the US during the ‘war on terror’. The country has strong historic ties to France and, in the past two years, has grown closer to Britain.

Algeria has the third-largest oil reserves in Africa and is the sixth-largest producer of natural gas in the world, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

“The West is desperate that Algeria, the regime, can stay in place by making the necessary reforms,” Keenan says, adding that a cabinet shuffle could be on the horizon and that Bouteflika might eventually be replaced. But such reforms would be “purely cosmetic” and would serve only to maintain the present regime, he argues, noting that the lifting of the state of emergency should be interpreted in this context.

Arming the oppressors

And regardless of any change in tone, European governments seem unlikely to cut back on growing arms sales to North Africa and the Middle East.

Michele Alliot-Marie, the French foreign minister, is still suffering the political repercussions of her offer to support Tunisian and Algerian security forces with protest-suppressing “know-how” on January 12, even as Tunisian protesters were being killed.

Western arms exports to the region have drawn particular attention in the light of the killing of protesters in Libya and Bahrain in recent days, leading the UK and France to halt arms sales to the two countries. But the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), a UK-based organisation, argues that the bans are temporary and unlikely to lead to any long-term changes in some European governments’ active promotion of its arms export sector.

“As soon as public attention has moved on, they’ll be back supplying them,” Sarah Waldron, a spokesperson for CAAT, says.

Arms exports from EU member countries to Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco have risen significantly over the past five years. Arms export licences from the EU to the four countries rose from $1.3bn to $2.7bn in 2009, according to CAAT.

Coming in the context of co-operation on border control and anti-terrorism, the arms sales have risen for both strategic and economic reasons, Keenan says. “The equipment that is given to these countries in export arrangements in the name of counterterrorism is the same equipment that is used by these countries in the repression of their own people.”


Many North African activists are conscious of years of what they consider hypocrisy from the West and are sceptical about whether the uprisings will have a transformative effective on foreign policy.
For the past decade, only two things have mattered for Europeans and the US when it comes to Tunisia, Mokhtar Trifi, the president of the Tunisian Human Rights League (LTDH), says.

“The European Parliament and European governments were silent, and many of them were complicit. We never stopped drawing attention to the dictatorship. ‘Tunisia is good because Ben Ali was fighting terrorism and clandestine immigration.’ That was the argument [from Western governments],” Trifi says.

Jean-Philippe Chauzy, a spokesperson for the International Organization for Migration (IOM), which works with governments to manage international migration flows, says that Gaddafi’s threats to open the floodgates has succeeded in worrying European governments. Yet he notes that in recent days, Europeans have been facing up to the reality of the role that migration has played in relations with Libya.

“I think there’s recognition, in Italy at least, that realpolitik really dictated Italy’s relationship with Libya,” Chauzy says.

In the wake of the regime changes in North Africa, combined with the rise in unemployment in Europe, he says that policymakers are likely to consider a new approach to migration management. Ideally, Chauzy would like it to be one that focuses more on tackling the socio-economic factors at the root of migration and relies less on policing the seas.

Keenan says that by focusing on terrorism and immigration, Western countries have damaged their own interests. Whether it is the French, the Americans or the British, he argues that the preoccupation with Islamists and terrorism has undermined Western intelligence services’ ability to understand political and social dynamics in the region.

“If one got rid of the intelligence services, and just listened to Twitter or Facebook, we have more of an idea what’s going on.”

Oil supplies from Libya are already being disrupted. The same could happen in Algeria if serious unrest were to spread, he notes.

“The West, as a whole, has been wrong footed. I think it’s desperately trying to play catch-up. We could be paying a very high price for the strategy of the West towards these countries,” Keenan says.

Western leaders are now scrambling to build relationships with civil society in the region, after years of downplaying such ties at the bequest of its all-powerful leaders.

Yet members of the Tunisian Democratic Women’s Association are unlikely to forget that Rama Yade, as France’s secretary of human rights, cancelled her meeting with them for unexplained reasons during her visit to Tunisia in 2008. Nor will Trifi forget the fact that France’s last ambassador shunned the Tunisian Human Rights League, never once paying a visit.

Pro-democracy opposition parties, such as Algeria’s Socialist Forces Front (FFS), are commonly called upon by Western diplomats and politicians behind closed doors, but rarely do private expressions of concern for trampled political rights translate into public support.

For Abed Charef, an Algerian writer and journalist, North African countries would be more democratic if Western countries stopped interfering.

“People aspire to freedom, and they haven’t been able to enjoy that freedom, partly thanks to the support of Western countries,” Charef says. “In Algeria, we are suffocated by a political system that stifles economic growth, that stifles political opposition, that stifles everything.”

“[Western countries] act out of their own interest, they support anti-democratic leaders, they support corruption. That isn’t help, it’s been destroying us.”


Pressure mounts on Libya’s Gaddafi


Demonstrators remain on the streets as leader defies international condemnation.

Last Modified: 26 Feb 2011 08:45 GMT

Amateur video appears to show soldiers joining protesters in the city of Az Zawiyah [Al Jazeera] 

Internal and international pressure is mounting on Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi to stand down from power as protests continue against his 42-year rule.

Within the country, anti-government protesters said the demonstrations were gaining support, and footage believed to be filmed on Friday appeared to show soldiers in uniform joining the protesters.

The footage showed soldiers being carried on the shoulders of demonstrators in the city of Az Zawiyah, after having reportedly turned against the government – a scene activists said is being repeated across the country.


Al Jazeera, however, is unable to independently verify the content of the video, which was obtained via social networking websites.

Our correspondent in Libya reported on Friday that army commanders in the east who had renounced Gaddafi’s leadership had told her that military commanders in the country’s west were also beginning to turn against him.

They warned, however, that the Khamis Brigade, an army special forces brigade that is loyal to the Gaddafi family and is equipped with sophisticated weaponry, is currently still fighting anti-government forces.

Our correspondent, who cannot be named for security reasons, said that despite the gains, people are anxious about what Gaddafi might do next, and the fact that his loyalists were still at large.

Abu Yousef, speaking from the town of Tajoura, told Al Jazeera on Saturday that live ammunition was being used against anti-government protesters.

“Security forces are also searching houses in the area and killing those who they accuse of being against the government,” he said.

Crackdown after prayers

Security forces loyal to Gaddafi reportedly also opened fire on anti-government protesters in the capital, Tripoli, after prayers on Friday.

Follow more of Al Jazeera’s special coverage here 

Heavy gun fire was reported in the districts of Fashloum, Ashour, Jumhouria and Souq Al, sources told Al Jazeera.

The offensive came after Gaddafi appeared in Tripoli’s Green Square on Friday, to address a crowd of his supporters.

The speech, which also referred to Libya’s war of independence with Italy, appeared to be aimed at rallying what remains of his support base, with specific reference to the country’s youth.

An earlier speech, on Thursday evening had been made by phone, leading to speculation about his physical condition. But the footage aired on Friday showed the leader standing above the square, waving his fist as he spoke.

In the rooftop address Gaddafi urged his supporters below to “defend Libya”.

“If needs be, we will open all the arsenals. We will fight them and we will beat them,” he said.

International condemnation

The eastern region of the oil-rich North African nation is now believed to be largely free of Gaddafi control since the popular uprising began on February 14, with protests in the city of Benghazi inspired by revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia.

Al Jazeera’s Hoda Abdel-Hamid, reporting from the town of Al-Baida in eastern Libya on Saturday, said that while many parts of the country’s east is no longer government controlled, local residents do not want to separate from the rest of Libya.

“They still want a united Libya, and want Tripoli to remain its capital,” she said.

Our correspondent added that many in the country’s east have felt abandoned by the Gaddafi government, despite the vast oil wealth located in the region, and they feel they have no future in the country.


Hundreds of people have been killed in a brutal crackdown on the protests, though the official death toll remains unclear.

The crackdown has sparked international condemnation, with Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, becoming the first world leader to openly demand Gaddafi’s ouster.

Meanwhile, as Western governments scrambled to craft a collective response to the unrest, the United States said it was moving ahead with sanctions against the regime.

Barack Obama, the US president,  issued an executive order, seizing assets and blocking any property in the United States belonging to Gaddafi or his four sons.

In a statement, Obama said the measures were specifically targeted against the Gaddafi government and not the wealth of the Libyan people.

The European Union also agreed to impose an arms embargo, asset freezes and travel bans on Libya.

Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, said on Friday that decisive action by the Security Council against the crackdown must be taken, warning that any delay would add to the growing death toll which he said now came to over 1,000.

The official death toll in the violence remains unclear. Francois Zimeray, France’s top human rights official, said on Thursday that it could be as high as 2,000 people killed.

Ban’s call, as well as an emotional speech by the Libyan ambassador to the United Nations, prompted the council to order a special meeting on Saturday to consider a sanctions resolution against Gaddafi.

Britain, France, Germany and the United States have drawn up a resolution which says the attacks on civilians could amount to crimes against humanity. It calls for an arms embargo and a travel ban and assets freeze against Gaddafi, and members of his government.

Al Jazeera and agencies




Mubarak and decaf coffee


Until now Western foreign policy in the Middle East has gotten the substance without the true cost.

Abbas Barzegar Last Modified: 26 Feb 2011 10:08 GMT
Is the era of Western ‘decaf coffee foreign policy’ over? [GALLO/GETTY] 

The renegade philosopher and cultural critic Slavoj Zizek once noted the absurdity of certain items in our modern consumer culture: The chocolate laxative, non-alcoholic beer and decaf coffee. What these products have in common is that each one offers you a much desired substance without its negative side effects. It is a way of enjoying, consuming something but avoiding the potential harm it might cause. The same tendency, according to Zizek, can be found in our politics.

What does this have to do with cascading revolts across the Middle East? Well, Western foreign policy in the region is pretty much like decaf coffee – until now we have gotten the substance without the true cost.

In the era of colonialism we wanted access to the trade routes and natural resources of the Middle East but did not want to have to deal with those nasty Ottomans, so we sent Lawrence of Arabia. Later we wanted oil, but not the Bedouins atop it, so we literally created an elite class of capitalist buddies to have lunch with. During the Cold War we wanted strategic allies in the Middle East, but preferred the Shah and Hosni Mubarak to the likes of Mohammed Mossadeq and Gamal Abdel Nasser.

And just last year, as human rights organisations were condemning Bahraini state (read Sunni) persecution of opposition political figures (read Shia), the US announced a $580mn expansion of its naval base there. After some bullets and a cancelled Formula One season opener, the world has learned a little more about Bahrain’s overwhelming majority Shia population ruled by a Sunni minority, policed by Sunni expats from Pakistan and bankrolled by Western patronage.

And Libya, that not-long-ago pariah oil exporter? Well what we did to land a lucrative BP oil deal and grease some extra arms sales is particularly nauseating now as Muammar Gaddafi declares war on his own citizens using the weapons we sold him.

Countless missed opportunities to learn from our mistakes may be leading to a final and lasting lesson – a Middle East without the US, the UK or Europe.  

What the revolts tell us is not simply that Arabs, like other humans, demand accountability and transparency in their governing institutions, but that they refuse to remain humiliated; that they demand true independence, an independence where national aspiration aligns with government action and not Western political prerogatives. This change comes to the Arab world whose neighbours have already learned how to operate outside of the US’ sphere of influence.

For example, in addition to Turkey emerging as the unlikely power broker in the region, it has increased its strategic ties with Iran in spite of Western efforts to isolate the Islamic Republic. Earlier this month it was announced that it would aim to triple bilateral trade with Iran to $30bn in the next five years. Now Egyptians of all stripes are looking to the Turkish model for inspiration.

In Lebanon, Hezbollah has managed to gain full control of the fragile political system and thereby directly benefit from the hundreds of millions in US military aid to the country since 2006. (FYI: Hezbollah’s strategic use of democratic procedure is likely to be the model for the Muslim Brotherhood, not the quietism of Ankara’s Islamists.) Of course, the fiasco in Iraq where Tehran plays the sole kingmaker hardly needs to be mentioned.

Crumbling pillars of dominance

As Daniel Korski and Ben Judah have rightly pointed out, the West’s three pillars of dominance in the Middle East – military presence, commercial ties and client states – are crumbling in the sand.

This does not mean, however, the absolute end of American and European influence in the region. The US’ economy remains three times the size of China’s, so the feared “look East” policy of the Arab Gulf monarchies is likely an exaggerated concern.

Likewise, although many on the “Arab street” have long admired Tehran’s defiance, it is unlikely that centuries of mutual antagonism and three decades of outright hostility will be undone by a non-ideological shuffling of a few Arab governments.

To be sure, whoever emerges as victors in Tunisia, Egypt or elsewhere, whether of nationalist or Islamist stripe, the last things they will give up are the many perks of engagement with the West.

On its end the West, the US in particular, will need to learn to engage with all groups, not just those it can bribe or coax. A few names will likely need to be erased from the terrorist roll and the reliability of the oldest friends of the West will need to be soberly reassessed.

The changes taking place simply signal that Europe and the US will need to learn to adapt to an increasingly complex and multidimensional political field.

That said, while it has become a cliché to talk about the ways in which the Middle East will never be the same, it should also be clear that the days of American and European decaf coffee foreign policy are over.

Abbas Barzegar is a professor of Islam at Georgia State University and a fellow at the Institute of Social Policy and Understanding. His research includes the history of Sunni-Shia relations, political Islam and Islam in the US. He is co-editor of the book Islamism: Contested Perspectives on Political Islam (Stanford, 2009).
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.




Obama: Gaddafi must leave Libya now


The US administration sharpens stance against Libyan leader, urging him for the first time to step down.

Last Modified: 26 Feb 2011 23:36 GMT
Obama’s call comes a day after the freezing of all Libyan assets in the US belonging to Gaddafi, his government and four of his children[Reuters]       

US President Barack Obama has said that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has lost his legitimacy to rule and urged him to step down from power immediately.

Obama’s call came in a call on Saturday to Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, sharpening US rhetoric after days of deadly violence – and criticism that Washington was slow to respond.

“When a leader’s only means of staying in power is to use mass violence against his own people, he has lost the legitimacy to rule and needs to do what is right for his country by leaving now,” the White House said in a statement, summarising their telephone conversation.

“The president and the chancellor shared deep concerns about the Libyan government’s continued violation of human rights and brutalisation of its people.”

The White House has previously stopped short of calling for Gaddafi to leave, saying – just as in other countries affected by a wave of regional unrest – that only Libya’s citizens had a say in choosing their rulers.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, echoed Obama’s tougher stance, and said Libyans had made their preferences on the issue clear.

US sanctions

“We have always said that the [Gaddafi] government’s future is a matter for the Libyan people to decide, and they have made themselves clear,” Clinton said in a statement.

“[Gaddafi] has lost the confidence of his people and he should go, without further bloodshed and violence.”

The Obama administration had been criticised for its relatively restrained response to Gaddafi’s bloody crackdown on an uprising against his four-decade rule.

But White House officials said fears for the safety of US citizens in Libya had tempered Washington’s response to the turmoil.

Washington announced a series of sanctions against Libya on Friday, after a chartered ferry and a plane carrying US citizens and other evacuees left Libya.

Clinton said she signed an order directing the State Department to revoke US visas held by senior Gaddafi government officials, their family members and others responsible for human rights violations in Libya.

“As a matter of policy, new visa applications will be denied,” she said.

Support for protests

The White House said Obama and Merkel reaffirmed their support for the Libyan people’s demand for universal rights and agreed Gaddafi’s government “must be held accountable”.

“They discussed appropriate and effective ways for the international community to respond,” the White House said.

“The president welcomed ongoing efforts by our allies and partners, including at the United Nations and by the European Union, to develop and implement strong measures.”

Obama has been holding a series of discussions with world leaders about the unrest in Libya. The administration is hoping that the world “speaks with a single voice” against Gaddafi’s violent crackdown, and the president is sending Clinton to Geneva on Sunday to coordinate with foreign policy chiefs from several countries.

Clinton will try to rally support against Gaddafi on Monday at the UN Human Rights Council, where she will to consult a range of foreign ministers on sanctions.

Washington is examining options including sanctions and a no-fly zone to try to stop Gaddafi’s violent suppression of anti-government protests.



Libya’s revolution headquarters


Benghazi, the de facto capital of the opposition, is where much of anti-Gaddafi actions are co-ordinated and executed.

Evan Hill Last Modified: 27 Feb 2011 06:36 GMT
 Pro-democracy activists set up makeshift command centres to co-ordinate revolt [Evan Hill/Al Jazeera]

BENGHAZI, LIBYA  —  In Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city, life has entered a new stage of revolutionary normal. Shops have re-opened next to burnt-out regime headquarters; the main justice building still stands, but its rooms are occupied by opposition media centres, and courtrooms have become kitchens.

Follow more of Al Jazeera’s special coverage here 

Several hundred kilometres to the west, military units still loyal to long time leader Muammar Gaddafi guard the roads, detaining journalists and preventing approach to Tripoli, the capital.

But if any concerns remained about whether the opposition’s de facto capital was truly in anti-Gaddafi hands, they melted at the appearance of a child leaning out the window of a passing car wearing an afro wig with a red cap on top.

“Look at my son – Gaddafi!” said the man in the driver’s seat.

Along streets where it once would have been unthinkable to question Colonel Gaddafi, whose rule is now in its 42nd year, spray-painted graffiti covers nearly every wall. Atop a gutted former security headquarters where the opposition now collects turned-in weapons, a huge, red, green and black flag flies – the first banner of post-colonial Libyan independence, which protesters have adopted as a symbol of a second independence from Gaddafi’s rule.

Next door stands Benghazi’s main courthouse. Its exterior remains covered in graffiti but comparatively unscathed. This is the new headquarters and nerve centre for Libya’s opposition. A week after the city fell to the protesters following bloody fighting with the local military garrison, it now features an organised civilian security team at the main entrance, a kitchen and an internet centre where Ahmed Sanalla and a small crew of tech-minded men lean over laptops.

Cyber revolt

The top-floor internet centre began operating on Tuesday, explains Sanalla, a dual British and Libyan citizen who has spent the past four years studying medicine at Benghazi’s Garyounis University.

Graffiti marks the walls in Benghazi [Evan Hill/Al Jazeera] 

Ahmed Sheikh, a 42-year-old computer engineer who works in civil aviation, rigged the room’s internet system. A cable leads from a large satellite dish on the roof through a hole in the wall to a receiver, which then connects to wireless routers. Most of the laptops connect directly to the routers by Ethernet cables, though on Saturday afternoon, the connection was hampered by heavy wind, intermittent rain and cloudy skies.

“You’re getting two kilobytes a second, it’s worthless,” Sanalla told one of the other men trying to upload videos to YouTube.

At another laptop, 26-year-old Ahmed Yacoub was setting up an Arabic-language WordPress blog: “The Voice of the February 17 Revolution” – named after the “day of rage” when the protests in Libya began to turn into a violent uprising.

Yacoub, who studies media and programming at Garyounis, said he and other Libyans gained “courage and guidance” from the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia. Egyptians have been assisting the Libyan uprising, not only by ferrying aid across the liberated eastern border between the two countries, but by carrying media out of the internet blackout in Libya to upload in Egyptian border towns and by sharing tactical advice on how to confront a repressive government crackdown, Sanalla said.

Between the onset of heavy fighting on the 17th and the 21st, he said, protesters in Benghazi were suffering under a total internet blackout. Then Sheikh came and arranged his ad-hoc system. On Saturday, they had just arranged to make phone calls through the satellite connection and could now conduct Skype phone calls with the outside world. Sanalla had been reaching out to international media organisations such as CNN and the BBC using the program’s chat capability.

The crew in the room also administers the “Libyans” group on Facebook and tweets from the account “endtyranny01” – Sanalla’s from when he wanted to remain anonymous.

‘Acceptable distortion’

Much of the information about the Libyan uprising that reached the West in recent weeks came from Libyan expatriates who were phoning, emailing or instant messaging with family and friends inside the country. Often, the Libyans abroad would relay incomplete or exaggerated news, as when false reports spread that protesters in Benghazi had found hundreds of political prisoners held underground for decades (in fact, a dozen or so were released, and their internment was several times smaller than had been reported, Sanalla said.)

Much of the equipment is donated [Evan Hill/Al Jazeera] 

“Some of it was well exaggerated,” he said. But in his mind, if it helped the uprising’s cause. It was an acceptable distortion.

“It put more pressure on the international people, it made it even more horrific.”

At the burned-out building next door, where the opposition militia is collecting weapons from citizens, a revolutionary media cell has set up its headquarters. On the second floor, in three cinderblock rooms lit by bare light bulbs, a dozen men and women co-ordinate the effort. In one room, men sit around computers arranged on fold-out tables, collecting videos and photographs from anyone who comes in, screening them for importance and using some for emotional slideshows overlaid with dramatic music. The activists there say they have around 40 gigabytes of data so far.

In an adjacent room sits a large, industrial printer taken from an architect’s office that produces the opposition’s large banners. Mohammed al-Zawam, a 25-year-old media assistant, held one up: In the revolt’s red, green and black colours, it called for free elections and “equality for all”.

Much of the equipment, food and medical aid powering and sustaining the uprising in Benghazi and elsewhere have been donated. The media cell consists of young men who brought their own laptops and desktops in the days after the Benghazi military garrison finally fell. Libyans have come out to volunteer and give their services, and the altruism has even extended to foreign journalists, who have often received room and board for free while covering the unrest.

“It’s important for those outside to know who we are and why we are doing this,” Sheikh said.

‘Big boss remains in power’

While the corniche road in central Benghazi, a city of around 750,000, can’t rival revolutionary Cairo’s Tahrir Square for sheer enormity, the city has taken on a similar sense of excitement and communal sentiment, intermingled with mourning, since protesters took control.

Activists told us they  have marvelled at young people suddenly picking up brooms to clean the streets. In the square facing the courthouse, crowds gathered all day to sing and chant slogans, cheering as Sanalla and others dropped a giant revolutionary flag from the rooftop.

Many brought their own computers [Evan Hill/Al Jazeera] 

Near the water’s edge, medical tents arranged by the Red Crescent and Egyptian volunteers swayed in the stiff, wet wind blowing off the white-capped Mediterranean. Nearby, children climbed on army tanks decorated in graffiti, and a wall of posters and notes commemorated those who had died in the protests.

Despite the euphoria, the opposition’s battle is not yet won. The “big boss,” as one Libyan called Gaddafi, remains in power, and western towns that have risen against him are separated from Benghazi and the east by Sirte – Gaddafi’s birthplace, which remains under his control.
Some activists say they are waiting for the international community to enforce a no-fly zone in Libya’s skies, giving them the security to march onto Tripoli and oust Gaddafi.

In the meantime, Benghazi’s men on Saturday were queueing outside revolutionary headquarters to sign up for the opposition’s new army, and around 300km down the road to Sirte, in the west, returning journalists reported that they had been stopped and briefly detained by a military unit still loyal to Gaddafi.

The journalists had been released, but the soldiers had confiscated their equipment. They had blocked the road with half a dozen jeeps, mounted with anti-aircraft guns. The soldiers wore body armour and appeared confident and calm, the reporters said.

They didn’t look like men going anywhere


Libya’s Gaddafi clings to Tripoli


With much of the oil-producing regions in opposition hands, Gaddafi’s power base shrinks to the capital’s periphery.

Last Modified: 27 Feb 2011 13:48 GMT
Thousands of people are waiting to be evacuated from Libya outside Tripoli airport, many of them for days [Reuters] 

As more cities fall into the hands of the pro-democracy protesters, Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, is hanging on to the capital where security forces loyal to him seem to have a firm hold, even amid reports of sporadic gunfire.

On Sunday, protesters had reportedly taken over the towns of Misurata and Zawiyah, further shrinking the control of Gaddafi’s government.

However, tanks were surrounding Zawiyah, 50km from Tripoli, and locals feared an imminent crackdown by pro-Gaddafi  forces.

Ezeldina, a Zawiyah resident, said people in the city had raided some military camps and were prepared to defend themselves.


“We are expecting an attack at any moment,” he told Al Jazeera. “We are forming rotating watchgroups, guarding the neighbourhood.”

Police stations and government offices inside the city have been torched and anti-Gaddafi graffiti painted of walls.

Hundreds of protesters in the city centre chanted “Gaddafi Out”.  An effigy of Gaddafi hung from a light pole in the main square.

Tripoli showdown

With much of the oil-producing regions, including the second city of Benghazi, in protesters’ hands, the opposition is rapidly gearing up for a showdown in Tripoli.

The UN Security Council imposed a travel and assets ban on Gaddafi’s government and, with exceptional unanimity, ordered an investigation into possible crimes against humanity by the Libyan strongman [See a list of those targeted by the sanctions].

Hana Elgallal, a legal and human rights expert in Benghazi, said some in Libya will be disappointed that the UN did not impose a no-fly zone. 

Australia’s Kevin Rudd speaks to Al Jazeera

“I’m one person who was hoping that we’d get that,” she told Al Jazeera.
“We will not be able to move and help Tripoli because of the fear that he will use his planes. But whatever we get now we will look at it positively and consider it a victory and success.
“Hopefully things will escalate in our benefit soon to defuse the massacres in Tripoli.”

The UN move come amid increased international criticism of Gaddafi’s crackdown on protests. Barack Obama, the US president, has called on Gaddafi to “leave now.”

The foreign minister of Italy, Gaddafi’s closest European ally, said on Sunday that the end of the Libyan leader’s rule was “inevitable”.

Franco Frattini also said a friendship and co-operation treaty between Libya and Italy was “de facto suspended”.

“We have reached, I believe, a point of no return,” Frattini told Sky Italia television.

Australia has also moved to put pressure on the Libyan government by imposing unilateral sanctions. Kevin Rudd, the foreign minister, told Al Jazeera that more measures need to be taken against Gaddafi and his government.

“There is one critical element of the UN Security Council resolution, which we in Australia have strongly argued for, for the last week, and that is a reference to the International Criminal Court,” he said.

“This is critical for the regime in Tripoli to understand. That is, if they take further actions of violence against innocent civilians in Libya, it is not just those who issue orders, but those who pull the trigger who will then become subject to the jurisdiction of the criminal court.”

‘Enemy of God’

His comments came as armed protesters in the eastern city of al-Baida threatened to march on to the capital.

Al Jazeera obtained video of the protesters who said they are planning to march on to Tripoli and claim to have seized tanks and weapons from the army.

Their claims came a day after hundreds of Tripoli residents, shouting “Gaddafi is the enemy of God” and shaking their fists, vowed on Saturday to fight Gaddafi at the funeral of a man killed by the Libyan leader’s soldiers.

In a poor neighbourhood of the Libyan capital that is openly defiant of Gaddafi’s more than 41-year-old rule, hundreds of men gathered to pay tribute to one of five people they said had been killed when troops fired on protesters late on Friday.

The number could not be independently confirmed.

“We will demonstrate again and again, tomorrow and the day after tomorrow,” said Isham, 34, an engineer.

His voice breaking with emotion, another man, Ismail, said: “Gaddafi forces came here, they shot everywhere during a demonstration that was peaceful.”

Diplomats say about 2,000 or more people have been killed across the country.

‘Transitional government’

Meanwhile, Libya’s former justice minister announced he was forming a “transitional government” to replace Gaddafi’s crumbling regime, which now controls only some western areas around the capital and a few long-time bastions in the arid south, reporters and witnesses say.

Follow more of Al Jazeera’s special coverage here 

In al-Baida, Mustafa Abdel Jalil said the new administration would include commanders of the regular army, many of who defected to the opposition, and would pave the way for free and fair elections in three months’ time.

“Our national government has military and civilian personalities. It will lead for no more than three months, and then there will be fair elections and the people will choose their leader,” Abdel Jalil said.

Al Jazeera’s Tony Birtley, reporting from Benghazi, said people in the city “realise that at the end of the day, they are going to be responsible for the liberation of their entire country and they are taking steps to do that”.

“There was a big meeting of the former justice minister who is leading this process and the tribal elders,” our correspondent said.

“If anything signals the downfall of Gaddafi it’s the fact that these tribes are coming together and they’re showing unity and solidarity.”

From Misurata, a major city 200km east of Tripoli, residents and exile groups said by telephone that a thrust by forces loyal to Gaddafi, operating from the local airport, had been rebuffed by the opposition.

“There were violent clashes last night and in the early hours of the morning near the airport,” Mohammed, a resident of the town, said. “An extreme state of alert prevails in the city.”

He said several mercenaries from Chad had been detained by the anti-Gaddafi opposition in Misurata. The report could not be verified but was similar to accounts elsewhere of Gaddafi deploying fighters brought in from African states where he has longstanding allies.

Al Jazeera and agencies


US neo-cons urge Libya intervention


Signatories to the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) demand “immediate” military action.

Jim Lobe Last Modified: 27 Feb 2011 16:00 GMT
Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman wants the US to arm Libyan rebels [GALLO/GETTY] 

In a distinct echo of the tactics they pursued to encourage US intervention in the Balkans and Iraq, a familiar clutch of neo-conservatives appealed Friday for the United States and NATO to “immediately” prepare military action to help bring down the regime of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and end the violence that is believed to have killed well over a thousand people in the past week.

The appeal, which came in the form of a letter signed by 40 policy analysts, including more than a dozen former senior officials who served under President George W. Bush, was organised and released by the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), a two-year-old neo-conservative group that is widely seen as the successor to the more-famous – or infamous – Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

Warning that Libya stood “on the threshold of a moral and humanitarian catastrophe”, the letter, which was addressed to President Barack Obama, called for specific immediate steps involving military action, in addition to the imposition of a number of diplomatic and economic sanctions to bring “an end to the murderous Libyan regime”.

In particular, it called for Washington to press NATO to “develop operational plans to urgently deploy warplanes to prevent the regime from using fighter jets and helicopter gunships against civilians and carry out other missions as required; (and) move naval assets into Libyan waters” to “aid evacuation efforts and prepare for possible contingencies;” as well as “(e)stablish the capability to disable Libyan naval vessels used to attack civilians.”

The usual suspects

Among the letter’s signers were former Bush deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Bush’s top global democracy and Middle East adviser; Elliott Abrams; former Bush speechwriters Marc Thiessen and Peter Wehner; Vice President Dick Cheney’s former deputy national security adviser, John Hannah, as well as FPI’s four directors: Weekly Standard editor William Kristol; Brookings Institution fellow Robert Kagan; former Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority spokesman Dan Senor; and former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy and Ambassador to Turkey, Eric Edelman.

It was Kagan and Kristol who co-founded and directed PNAC in its heyday from 1997 to the end of Bush’s term in 2005.

The letter comes amid growing pressure on Obama, including from liberal hawks, to take stronger action against Gaddafi.

Two prominent senators whose foreign policy views often reflect neo-conservative thinking, Republican John McCain and Independent Democrat Joseph Lieberman, called Friday in Tel Aviv for Washington to supply Libyan rebels with arms, among other steps, including establishing a no-fly zone over the country.

On Wednesday, Obama said his staff was preparing a “full range of options” for action. He also announced that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will meet fly to Geneva Monday for a foreign ministers’ meeting of the UN Human Rights Council to discuss possible multilateral actions.

“They want to keep open the idea that there’s a mix of capabilities they can deploy – whether it’s a no-fly zone, freezing foreign assets of Gaddafi’s family, doing something to prevent the transport of mercenaries (hired by Gaddafi) to Libya, targeting sanctions against some of his supporters to persuade them to abandon him,” said Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation, who took part in a meeting of independent foreign policy analysts, including Abrams, with senior National Security Council staff at the White House Thursday.


During the 1990s, neo-conservatives consistently lobbied for military pressure to be deployed against so-called “rogue states”, especially in the Middle East.

After the 1991 Gulf War, for example, many “neo-cons” expressed bitter disappointment that US troops stopped at the Kuwaiti border instead of marching to Baghdad and overthrowing the regime of Saddam Hussein.

When the Iraqi president then unleashed his forces against Kurdish rebels in the north and Shia insurgents in the south, they – along with many liberal interventionist allies – pressed President George H.W. Bush to impose “no-fly zones” over both regions and take additional actions – much as they are now proposing for Libya – designed to weaken the regime’s military repressive capacity.

Those actions set the pattern for the 1990s. To the end of the decade, neo-conservatives, often operating under the auspices of a so-called “letterhead organisation”, such as PNAC, worked – often with the help of some liberal internationalists eager to establish a right of humanitarian intervention – to press President Bill Clinton to take military action against adversaries in the Balkans – in Bosnia and then Kosovo – as well as Iraq.

Within days of 9/11, for example, PNAC issued a letter signed by 41 prominent individuals – almost all neo- conservatives, including 10 of the Libya letter’s signers – that called for military action to “remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq”, as well as retaliation against Iran and Syria if they did not immediately end their support for Hezbollah in Lebanon.

PNAC and its associates subsequently worked closely with neo-conservatives inside the Bush administration, including Abrams, Wolfowitz, and Edelman, to achieve those aims.

Liberal hawks

While neo-conservatives were among the first to call for military action against Gaddafi in the past week, some prominent liberals and rights activists have rallied to the call, including three of the letter’s signatories: Neil Hicks of Human Rights First; Bill Clinton’s human rights chief, John Shattuck; and Leon Wieseltier of The New Republic, who also signed the PNAC Iraq letter 10 years ago.

In addition, Anne-Marie Slaughter, until last month the influential director of the State Department’s Policy Planning office, cited the U.S.-NATO Kosovo campaign as a possible precedent. “The international community cannot stand by and watch the massacre of Libyan protesters,” she wrote on Twitter. “In Rwanda we watched. In Kosovo we acted.”

Such comments evoked strong reactions from some military experts, however.

“I’m horrified to read liberal interventionists continue to suggest the ease with which humanitarian crises and regional conflicts can be solved by the application of military power,” wrote Andrew Exum, a counter-insurgency specialist at the Center for a New American Security. “To speak so glibly of such things reflects a very immature understanding of the limits of force and the difficulties and complexities of contemporary military operations.”


Other commentators noted that a renewed coalition of neo- conservatives and liberal interventionists would be much harder to put together now than during the Balkan wars of the 1990s.

“We now have Iraq and Afghanistan as warning signs, as well as our fiscal crisis, so I don’t think there’s an enormous appetite on Capitol Hill or among the public for yet another military engagement,” said Charles Kupchan, a foreign policy specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

“I support diplomatic and economic sanctions, but I would stop well short of advocating military action, including the imposition of a no-fly zone,” he added, noting, in any event, that most of the killing in Libya this week has been carried out by mercenaries and paramilitaries on foot or from vehicles.

“There may be some things we can do – such as airlifting humanitarian supplies to border regions where there are growing number of refugees, but I would do so only with the full support of the Arab League and African Union, if not the UN,” said Clemons.

“(The neo-conservatives) are essentially pro-intervention, pro-war, without regard to the costs to the country,” he said. “They don’t recognise that we’re incredibly over- extended and that the kinds of things they want us to do actually further weaken our already-eroded stock of American power.” 

A version of this article first appeared on the Inter Press Service News Agency.



Gaddafi aide ‘to talk to rivals’


Move comes even as Libyan opposition sees no room for negotiation with the regime.

Last Modified: 28 Feb 2011 16:47 GMT
Muammar Gaddafi has reportedly appointed the head of Libya’s foreign intelligence service to speak to the leadership of the anti-government protesters in the east of the country.The appointment of Bouzaid Dordah on Monday comes as the opposition is expanding its grip of the country, holding several cities near the capital, Tripoli.  


Representatives of the opposition, based in Libya’s second biggest city, Benghazi, have formed a “national council” to keep the uprisings in different cities under an umbrella organisation.

A spokesman for the council said on Sunday that he saw no room for negotiation with the regime.

“We will help liberate other Libyan cities, in particular Tripoli through our national army, our armed forces, of which part have announced their support for the people,” Hafiz Ghoga, spokesman for the new National Libyan Council, said.

A prominent figure in the opposition movement is former justice minister Mustafa Mohamed Abdel Jalil, who resigned a week ago in protest against the killing of protesters.

Al Jazeera and agencies

Clinton urges Gaddafi to step down


US secretary of state says Gaddafi’s government must be held to account as EU approves new sanctions against Libya.

Last Modified: 28 Feb 2011 16:27 GMT
The United States is seeking unified global action against Gaddafi and his regime [GALLO/GETTY]  

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, has said the government of Muammar Gaddafi must be held to account over atrocities committed in Libya as she reiterated calls for the leader to step down.

Meanwhile, a Pentagon official said the US military was repositioning naval and air forces around Libya.

“We have planners working and various contingency plans and I think it’s safe to say as part of that we’re repositioning
forces to be able to provide for that flexibility once decisions are made … to be able to provide options and flexibility,” Colonel David Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman, said.

Speaking at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, on Monday, Clinton said Gaddafi must leave power “now, without further violence or delay”.

“Gaddafi and those around him must be held accountable for these acts, which violate international legal obligations and common decency,” she said.

Clinton also urged the international community to act with one voice against the Libyan administration, and said Washington was keeping “all options on the table” in terms of action against the government.

Her comments came after the European Union approved its own sanctions including an arms embargo and travel bans against Libya.

“We are already working on EU restrictive measures that should come into force quickly,” Catherine Ashton, the bloc’s foreign policy chief, said at the UN human rights meeting.

“Together with that we will adopt additional accompanying measures such as an embargo on equipment which might be used for internal repression and we’re looking at individuals under the travel restrictions and the assets freeze.”

Read more of our Libya coverage 

The 27-nation bloc has agreed to freeze the assets of Gaddafi, his family and government, and ban the sale of goods such as tear gas and anti-riot equipment.

It is believed the EU sanctions are aimed at strengthening a raft of measures passed by the United Nations Security Council on Saturday, which include referring Libya to the International Criminal Court (ICC) over the brutal crackdown on pro-democracy protesters.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the prosecutor of the ICC, said a preliminary investigation into possible crimes against humanity committed in Libya would begin on Monday.

“There will be no impunity for leaders involved in the commission of crimes,” he said.

He said he would decide within a few days whether or not to launch a full investigation of alleged crimes committed since February 15, that would enable prosecutors to collect evidence and request an arrest warrant against those identified as responsible.

A growing number of world leaders are placing pressure on Gaddafi to step down amid a violent uprising.

On Sunday Britain and Canada followed moves by the US to freeze the assets of Gaddafi and his family, while on Monday Germany said it is proposing to freeze all financial payments to Libya for 60-days.

‘Exile is an option’

Navi Pillay, the UN human rights chief, told the conference that the international community must support reforms in the Middle East in “words and deeds”.

“The council should not relax its vigilance over Libya as the threat of violent reprisals against civilians still looms,” she said.

The moves come amid growing outrage over the bloodshed in Libya, blamed on forces loyal to Gaddafi. The embattled leader remains defiant despite the opposition gaining ground across the country, and has vowed to purge the country of protesters “city by city, house by house”.

The US is pressing Europe for tough sanctions on the Libyan government to turn up the heat on Gaddafi, saying that sanctions would convince the leader’s remaining loyalists to abandon his regime.

“The US has a wider sanctions regime than the UN has decided and they would like the Europeans to step in on that,” Al Jazeera’s Nick Spicer, reporting from Geneva, said.

Speaking in Cairo, John McCain and Joe Lieberman, two leading US senators, called for the immediate imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya.

They also urged the White House to recognise the “provisional government” set up by Gaddafi opponents in the eastern city of Benghazi.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Ibrahim Sharquieh, the deputy director of the Brookings Doha Centre, said that  a “no-fly zone is certainly a good idea”.

“Although we have not seen credible independent evidence that Gaddafi has used jets to attack the protesters, that doesn’t mean that he will not.”

David Cameron, the British prime minister, said the UK is working with its allies on a plan to establish a military no-fly zone over Libya, a move also mentioned by Jay Carney, a White House spokesman.

Carney added that Gaddafi could go into exile to help satisfy demands by the US for him to step down.

“Exile is certainly one option for him to affect that change,” he said on Monday.



From anthropology to politics: the myth of the fundamentalist Arab Muslim mind

Posted on February 28, 2011 by Dr. Marranci| Leave a comment

Rate This



// <![CDATA[
PDRTJS_settings_2658250_post_597={“id”:2658250,”unique_id”:”wp-post-597″,”title”:”From anthropology to politics: the myth of the fundamentalist Arab Muslim mind”,”permalink”:”http:\/\/marranci.wordpress.com\/2011\/02\/28\/from_anthropology_to_politics\/”,”item_id”:”_post_597″}
Many would have noticed that western leaders and countries seem to shift from one position to another about the wave of revolts in the Middle East and Arab world. One prime example: Tony Blair, who incidentally is the official envoy of the Quartet on the Middle East, shifted from praising Mubarak on Wednesday 2 February 2011, to praising the protests for democracy on 13 February. At the same time, in those interviews, he first presented the Muslim Brotherhood as a dangerous para-terrorist organization and then ending in declaring that politicians should “not be hysterical about them, they are not terrorists or extremists”. Although we need to acknowledge that each revolt finds its raison d’être in local contexts and issues, we have also to recognize that Arab youth in the region want a change: they wish to end the long post-colonial period of time marked by dictators at the service of western economic and geopolitical interests.

This revolt is not just against the tyrants but also against the ‘system’ and, as I will explain below, against how the “civilized” West feels entitled to manage the “civilizable” East. To understand this process, we need to make sense of how Arabs, Muslims (and in this case the Middle East) has been conceptualized. As we shall see, anthropology since the 1970s has had lots to say about it and, as some may be surprised to come to know, has directly – but even more so indirectly (nearly subconsciously) -deeply influenced political scientists and then politicians and policies.

The emphasis on the role that the Islamic holy text plays in the formation of extreme political ideas, particularly in the form of strict structuralism, is certainly not an innovation of populist, right-wing literature that aims to capitalize upon the September 11 tragedy. Much before the event that has definitely marked the end of the post-Cold War era and started the era of the War on Terror, the anthropologist Gellner (1981), for instance, suggested an extremely essentialised view of Islam, seen as a social blueprint. Indeed, Gellner’s central argument concerning Islam argued that Islam cannot change. Far from being the religion of living Muslims with opinions, ideas, feelings and identities, Gellnerian Islam is an essence that remains constant in its model. So much so that Hammoudi (1980), for instance, has suggested that Gellner, by ‘brushing aside all history’, has just imposed his convenient social–political model of Islam onto a Muslim reality that is instead extremely complex (see also Varisco 2005 and Marranci 2008).

Gellner has suggested that Islam, being a markedly secularisation-resistant religion, is also the most vigorously fundamentalist. According to Gellner, Islam, as a religion, shows some ideological historical elements conducive towards fundamentalism. First, Islam is a scriptural faith that claims to be the perfect and final one. Secondly, there is no room for new prophets, because Muslims consider Muhammad the seal of prophecy. Thirdly, Islam has no clergy, and, therefore, no religious differentiation is possible. Finally, Islam does not need to differentiate between church and state because Islam ‘began as a religion of rapidly successful conquerors who soon were state’ (Gellner 1981: 100).

Hier verder lezen


UN worried over Libya access


Humanitarian chief says unrest is preventing the world body from assessing the situation in Tripoli and western Libya.

Last Modified: 28 Feb 2011 21:48 GMT
The UN says 40,000 people fleeing Libya have have crossed the Tunisian border [Reuters] 

The fragile security situation in and around the Libya capital of Tripoli has made it too dangerous for international aid agencies to assess the need for medicine, food and other supplies there, the United Nations has said.

“The major concerns are Tripoli and the west where access is extremely difficult because of the security situation,” Valerie Amos, the UN humanitarian chief, told Al Jazeera on Monday.

“There are reports that between 600 and 2,000 people have already been killed in Tripoli. We don’t know the absolute accurate number because we haven’t got people there who are able to do assessments … we’ve seen some horrific pictures of what is happening and we really want to be able to go in to help people in the time of need.”

Amos also called on countries neighbouring Libya to keep their borders open so refugees can continue to flee.

As of Monday morning, an estimated 61,000 had fled into Egypt, 1,000 to Niger and 40,000 to Tunisia, according to the UN, which said there was concern about water and sanitation for the refugees. 

Libya also borders Algeria, Niger, Chad and Sudan.

Red Cross teams

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has also called for immediate and safe access to western Libya.

ICRC teams entered the eastern side of the country including the country’s second city Benghazi over the weekend, and are now supporting local doctors with medical care. Two thousand people were wounded there, according to the agency.

A similar ICRC team including surgeons and supplies was waiting on the western border in Tunisia.

“Right now, the situation is far too unstable and insecure to enable much-needed help to enter western parts of the country,” Yves Daccord, the ICRC director-general, said.

“Health and aid workers must be allowed to do their jobs safely. Patients must not be attacked, and ambulances and hospitals must not be misused. It’s a matter of life and death.”

Thousands of foreigners have been evacuated from Libya since the unrest began, with ships and planes sent by countries including China  India, the US, Turkey and many other European countries.

But many citizens of Iraq, Sudan, Somalia and other poor countries are stranded in the country as they lack the resources to escape, UN High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres said.

 “There are no planes and boats to evacuate people originating from war-torn or very poor countries,” he said in a statement.

The few UN workers who were based in Tripoli left when it became unstable.

Amos said humanitarian work is proceeding smoothly along Libya’s eastern border with Egypt,  which is now controlled by government opponents, with eight agencies providing medical care, food and other critical aid.

Tunisians, to the northwest, have been providing refugees with shelter and food, Amos said.

Al Jazeera and agencies


ICC to probe Gaddafi over violence


Luis Moreno-Ocampo says Libyan leader and key figures to be investigated for crimes against humanity.

Last Modified: 03 Mar 2011 15:06 GMT
The court will investigate claims that peaceful protesters had been attacked by forces loyal to Gaddafi [Al Jazeera] 

Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, and his key aides will be investigated for alleged crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court, the chief prosecutor has said.


Alan Fisher


AlanFisher profile

AlanFisher @TaviGreiner Pro government forces 14 minutes ago · reply

AlanFisher profile

AlanFisher It appears one of the Dutch Marines detained by the Libyans is a female pilot. #Libya #Netherlands #Marines 17 minutes ago · reply

AlanFisher profile

AlanFisher Just updated my website. Check it out http://www.alanfisher.tv/ 18 minutes ago · reply

AlanFisher profile

AlanFisher The early report from me at the Hague today http://youtu.be/Gu0psWjP&#8230; #Video 20 minutes ago · reply

AlanFisher profile

AlanFisher @amonck People on twitter now frantically putting Spiro Agnew into Wikipedia 23 minutes ago · reply

AlanFisher profile

AlanFisher @VahlMStowastiq There has been no reference to the ICC on Egypt 24 minutes ago · reply

AlanFisher profile

AlanFisher @bamagirl011 @shariq1975 Thanks for the #ff 25 minutes ago · reply

AlanFisher profile

AlanFisher @amonck or the benefits of a good scottish education 26 minutes ago · reply

AlanFisher profile

AlanFisher @amonck Spiro Agnew Did 27 minutes ago · reply

AlanFisher profile

AlanFisher @jblokzijl Thank you 27 minutes ago · reply

veniviedivici profile

veniviedivici @AlanFisher Libyan state TV shows captured Dutch Navy helicoper and its crew; video here http://bit.ly/ihgmYX about 1 hour ago · reply

AlanFisher profile

AlanFisher @veniviedivici thanks for that about 1 hour ago · reply

AlanFisher profile

AlanFisher @veniviedivici hi there – source for that? 2 hours ago · reply

AlanFisher profile

AlanFisher Al-Jazeera angers Hillary, but it’s a valuable news source http://t.co/jNxVsz0 via @guardian 2 hours ago · reply

tweetminster profile

tweetminster “Hillary Clinton: Al Jazeera is ‘Real News’, U.S. Losing ‘Information War'” http://abcn.ws/i17FQU – ABC News 6 hours ago · reply

AlanFisher profile

AlanFisher They watch #aje in the #ICC. I saw 7 hours ago · reply

Speaking at a press conference in The Hague, the Netherlands, on Thursday, Luis Moreno-Ocampo said he would investigate claims that peaceful protesters had been attacked by forces loyal to Gaddafi.

“We have identified some individuals with de facto or formal authority, who have authority over the security forces,” that have clamped down on a rebellion that started on February 15, he said.

“They are Muammar Gaddafi, his inner circle, including some of this sons,” he said, and vowed there would be “no impunity in Libya”.

The prosecutor also listed individuals including the Libyan leader’s head of personal security, and the head of the external security forces. He said he expected to ask judges at the court for arrest warrants within ” a few months”.

He added that opposition forces would also be investigated.

Hoda Abdel-Hamid, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Benghazi, eastern Libya, said people were likely to welcome the news and had been “wondering when accountability would be coming”.

She added the announcement that both sides would be held accountable was “a clear message for the opposition to try and control the number of weapons circulating in civilian areas”.

Warning to Western nations

Alan Fisher, Al Jazeera’s correspondent at The Hague, said Moreno-Ocampo was hoping to apply pressure to Libya over the violence.

“He said the reality is that you cannot take tanks and guns and fire them into crowds that are peacefully protesting. As far as he’s concerned that’s a crime against humanity and has to be investigated.”

Moreno-Ocampo’s statement comes as government forces in Libya launch fresh assaults  in the town of Ajdabiya and the eastern oil port town of Brega.

Thousands of people are fleeing the violent crackdown in Libya, with vast crowds of locals and foreign workers being evacuated at the country’s border with Tunisia.

Western leaders have said they are considering a range of responses to the crisis in the riot-torn nation, with Britain and France saying on Thursday they support the notion of a no-fly zone over Libya.

William Hague, the British foreign secretary, and Alain Juppe, his French counterpart, said they were working on “bold and ambitious” proposals to present to an EU meeting next week.

They said any action must have international support, legal backing and the participation of regional powers.

But Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, has warned that any military intervention would be “controversial”, and others have voiced concern that it could further destabilise the region.

Gaddafi has also warned that “thousands” would die if the West took military action against his forces.

“If the Americans or the West want to enter Libya they must know it will be hell and a bloodbath – worse than Iraq,” he said on state television on Wednesday.

Al Jazeera and agencies

Een democratische omwenteling in de Arabische Wereld? Deel 8– 8 ثورة ديمقراطية في العالم العربي؟ جزء

Posted in Uncategorized by Floris Schreve on 22 februari 2011

nieuws en artikelenoverzicht van de actuele gebeurtenissen in de Arabische wereld deel 8 (zie ook deel 1, deel 2, deel 3, deel 4, deel 5, deel 6 en deel 7)



Voor de nieuwste ontwikkelingen, bekijk hieronder: 

Al-Jazeera English live


Palestinian Authority closes Al-Jazeera office

klik op bovenstaand logo

Uit Nafas art Magazine (http://universes-in-universe.org/eng/nafas/articles/2010/why_not/images/09_ahmed_basiony):


UiU – home  |  email  |  masthead  |  newsletter, facebook  |  search  |  rss  |  عربيdeu


Nafas Art Magazine Institute for Foreign Cultural Relations


Nafas / Why Not? / Images 9 of 24

Ahmed Basiony

Ahmed Basiony
Ahmed Basiony

  Symmetric system (30 days of running in the place). 2010
Video, performance© Photo: Courtesy of Exhibition Organizers
  Ahmed Basiony
* 1978 Cairo, Egypt.
Killed during a demonstration on Tahrir Square, 28 January 2011.

Ahmed Basiony

  * 1978 Cairo, Egypt.
Killed during a demonstration on Tahrir Square, 28 January 2011.Photos and information in UiU and Nafas:Why Not?Contemporary Art from Egypt. Exhibition at Palace of Arts, Cairo. Photos and curatorial statement.
By Mohammed Talaat
February 2010 
  Ahmed Basiony

See also:Egypt – Nafas Art Magazine
Articles in the country archive of the online magazine.Egypt: Art
The visual arts in Universes in Universe.Egypt: Curators
Curatorial projects and texts featured in UiU

// <![CDATA[
document.write(“ “);
// ]]>


Fresh violence rages in Libya


Protesters say security forces using warplanes and live fire ‘massacred’ them, as UN warns of possible ‘war crimes’.

Last Modified: 22 Feb 2011 12:13 GMT
Libyan forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi are waging a bloody operation to keep him in power, with residents reporting gunfire in parts of the capital Tripoli and other cities, while other citizens, including the country’s former ambassador to India, are saying that warplanes were used to “bomb” protesters.Nearly 300 people are reported to have been killed in continuing violence in the capital and across the north African country as demonstrations enter their second week.Navi Pillay, the UN high commissioner for human rights, has warned that the widespread attacks against civilians “amount to crimes against humanity”, and called for an international investigation in possible human rights violations.


Witnesses in Tripoli told Al Jazeera that fighter jets had bombed portions of the city in fresh attacks on Monday night. The bombing focused on ammunition depots and control centres around the capital.

Helicopter gunships were also used, they said, to fire on the streets in order to scare demonstrators away.

Several witnesses said that “mercenaries” were firing on civilians in the city, while pro-Gaddafi forces warned people not to leave their homes via loudspeakers mounted on cars.

Residents of the Tajura neighbourhood, east of Tripoli, said that dead bodies are still lying on the streets from earlier violence. At least 61 people were killed in the capital on Monday, witnesses told Al Jazeeera.

‘Indiscriminate bombing’

Protests in the oil-rich African country, which Gaddafi has ruled for 41 years, began on February 14, but picked up momentum after a brutal government crackdown following a “Day of Rage” on February 17. Demonstrators say they have now taken control of several important towns, including the city of Benghazi, which saw days of bloody clashes between protesters and government forces.

There has been a heavy government crackdown on protests, however, and demonstrators at a huge anti-government march in the capital on Monday afternoon said they came under attack from fighter jets and security forces using live ammunition.

“What we are witnessing today is unimaginable. Warplanes and helicopters are indiscriminately bombing one area after another. There are many, many dead,” Adel Mohamed Saleh said in a live broadcast.

“Anyone who moves, even if they are in their car, they will hit you.”

Ali al-Essawi, who resigned as Libyan ambassador to India, also told Al Jazeera on Tuesday that fighter jets had been used by the government to bomb civilians.

He said live fire was being used against protesters, and that foreigners had been hired to fight on behalf of the government. The former ambassador called the violence “a massacre”, and called on the UN to block Libyan airspace in order to “protect the people”.


The country’s state broadcaster quoted Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the son of the Libyan leader, and widely seen as his political heir, as saying that armed forces had “bombarded arms depots situated far from populated areas”. He denied that air strikes had taken place in Tripoli and Benghazi.

The government says that it is battling “dens of terrorists”.

Earlier, Ibrahim Dabbashi, Libya’s deputy ambassador to the United Nations, said Gaddafi had started a “genocide against the Libyan people”.

During Monday’s protests, gunfire was heard across the capital, with protesters seen attacking police stations and government buildings, including the offices of the state broadcaster.

Witnesses told the AFP news agency that there had been a “massacre” in Tajura district, with gunmen seen firing “indiscriminately”.

In Fashlum district, helicopters were seen landing with what witnesses described as “mercenaries” disembarking and attacking those on the street.

Mohammed Abdul-Malek, a London-based opposition activist who has been in touch with residents, said that snipers have taken positions on roofs in an apparent bid to stop people joining the protests.

Several witnesses who spoke to the Associated Press news agency said that pro-Gaddafi gunmen were firing from moving cars at both people and buildings.

State television on Tuesday dismissed allegations that security forces were killing protesters as “lies and rumours”.

Benghazi situation dire

Benghazi, Libya’s second city, which had been the focal point of violence in recent days, has now been taken over by anti-government protesters, after military units deserted their posts and joined the demonstrators.

Doctors there, however, say that they are running short of medical supplies.

Dr Ahmed, at the city’s main hospital, told Al Jazeera that they were running short of medical supplies, medication and blood.

He said that the violence in Benghazi had left “bodies that are divided in three, four parts. Only legs, and only hands,”.

While no casualties had been reported in the city on Tuesday, he estimated the number of people killed in Benghazi alone over the last five days to be near 300.

He also said that when military forces who had defected from Gaddafi’s government entered an army base, they found evidence of soldiers having been executed, reportedly for refusing to fire on civilians.

The runway at the city’s airport has been destroyed, according to the Egyptian foreign minister, and planes can therefore not land there.

Possible ‘crimes against humanity’

According to the Paris-based International Federation for Human Rights (IFHR), protesters are also in control of Sirte, Tobruk in the east, as well as Misrata, Khoms, Tarhounah, Zenten, Al-Zawiya and Zouara.

On Sunday, the US-based rights group Human Rights Watch said that at least 233 people were killed in the violence. Added to that are at least 61 people who died on Monday, which brings the toll since violence began on February 17 to at least 294.

Pillay, the UN’s human rights chief, called on Tuesday for an international investigation into the violence in the country, saying that it was possible that “crimes against humanity” had been perpetrated by the Libyan government.

In a statement, Pillay called for an immediate halt to human rights violations, and denounced the use of machine guns, snipers and military warplanes against civilians.


Meanwhile, Royal Dutch Shell, a major oil company, said on Tuesday that all of its expatriate employees and their depenedents living in Libya have now been relocated.

Emirates airlines and British Airways suspended all flights to Tripoli on Tuesday, citing the violence in the country, even as Italy, France, Turkey, Greece and several other countries were preparing to send aircraft to evacuate their nationals from the country.

Two Turkish ships that were sent to evacuate citizens were not allowed to dock at Tripoli, and one of them then sailed to Benghazi in an attempt to dock there, Anita McNaught, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Istanbul, reported.  

Credit ratings agency Standard & Poor’s became the second agency in as many days to downgrade Libya on Tuesday, as it cut the country’s rating from A- to BBB+.

Al Jazeera and agencies




Social networks, social revolution


Youtube, Facebook and Twitter have become the new weapons of mass mobilisation.

Empire Last Modified: 16 Feb 2011 15:56 GMT
Information is power, but 21st century technology has unleashed an information revolution, and now the genie is out of the bottle.

In Depth
  ‘Information Wars’ on Al Jazeera
  Filming Empire at Columbia’s Journalism school

Youtube, Facebook and Twitter have become the new weapons of mass mobilisation; geeks have taken on dictators; bloggers are dissidents; and social networks have become rallying forces for social justice.

As people around the world challenge authorities, from Iran to Tunisia, Egypt to Yemen, entire societies are being transformed as ordinary citizens see the difference, imagine the alternative, and come together to organise for a better future.

So, are social networks triggering social revolution? And where will the next domino fall?

Empire finds out.

Joining Marwan Bishara to discuss these issues are: Carl Bernstein, a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist; Amy Goodman, the host and executive producer of Democracy Now!; Professor Emily Bell, the director of digital journalism at Columbia University; Evgeny Morozov, the author of The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom; Professor Clay Shirky, the author of Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age.

This episode of Empire can be seen from Thursday, February 17, at the following times GMT: Thursday: 0630, 2030; Friday: 1230; Saturday: 0130; Sunday: 0630, 2030.

Update van de NOS:

Onlusten Libië houden aan

Achtergronden en hoofdrolspelers »

Libië »

Bahrein »

Marokko »

Egypte »

Jemen »

Tunesië »

Algerije »

Jordanië »

Koeweit »

Video en audio »


// In Eindhoven staat er een vliegtuig klaar om zo’n 100 Nederlanders uit Libië te halen.

  • Vliegtuig Luchtmacht klaar voor vertrek naar LibiëIn Eindhoven staat er een vliegtuig klaar om zo’n 100 Nederlanders uit Libië te halen.
  • Situatie in Libië wordt steeds chaotischerHet verzet tegen het bewind van de Libische leider Kadhafi is overgeslagen naar de hoofdstad Tripoli. Zijn… (meer) minister van Justitie is afgetreden, Libische ambassadeurs leggen hun functie neer. Volgens onbevestigde berichten zouden nu zelfs bombardementen worden ingezet om het verzet te breken. Het is moeilijk om een heel precies beeld te krijgen van wat zich afspeelt in Libië. Voor buitenlandse journalisten is het zo goed als onmogelijk het land binnen te komen. Wat we weten, horen we vooral van ooggetuigen. Voor beelden zijn we afhankelijk van wat Libiërs via het internet naar buiten kunnen brengen.
  • Nicole le Fever over situatie in LibiëNicole le Fever volgt de ontwikkelingen in Libië vanuit Amman. Een gesprek met haar.
  • Verhalen van ooggetuigen uit LibiëWat er zich dus precies afspeelt in Libië is erg onduidelijk. Er zijn nauwelijks journalisten in het land,… (meer) ze mogen er niet in, en telefoons doen het niet of nauwelijks. Een paar inwoners konden vandaag toch met buitenlandse media spreken.
  • Muamar Kadhafi, al 42 jaar aan de macht in LibiëEr is geen machthebber in de Arabische wereld die-het langer uithield dan Kadhafi. Hij is al 42 jaar aan de… (meer) macht.
  • Het Marokkaanse volk wil … ?Vandaag werd in de Marokkaanse hoofdstad Rabat geprotesteerd tegen de regering. Maar verslaggever Gerri… (meer) Eickhof hoorde er vooral een kakafonie aan eisen.


    Breaking the sound barrier on Libya


    Through a combination of new technology and courage, Libyans make sure the world knows about their protests.

    Yasmine Ryan Last Modified: 21 Feb 2011 18:05 GMT
    Getting information out of Libya has been difficult, but human rights groups are doing their best to follow developments 

    Security forces may well have massacred protesters with characteristic brutality in Tripoli, the Libyan capital.

    Libyan authorities went to extreme lengths to stop news of the killings from getting out. Helicopters rained bullets down on people in the streets below on Monday afternoon, fighter jets launched strikes on protesters, while snipers reportedly fired from building tops, human rights groups said.

    Yet, with help from satellite phones and Twitter, the news made its way out of the country as killings were underway.

    Ahmed Elgazir, a human rights researcher with the Libyan News Centre (LNC) in Geneva, told Al Jazeera that he had received a call for help from a woman witnessing the massacre in progress on a satellite phone.

    The phone lines in to the country have been blocked, making it impossible to verify the information. Libyans on Twitter, however, sent desperate pleas for assistance.

    The killings in Tripoli came the day after a televised speech by Saif Gaddafi, a son of the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, warning of civil war if protests continue.”Libya is at a crossroads. If we do not agree today on reforms … rivers of blood will run through Libya,” he said.

    Elgazir condemned Saif Gaddafi’s speech a “ploy by the regime” to incite violence. The streets of Tripoli had been calm until the speech on Sunday night, the researcher said.

    “We hold him responsible for all the deaths that have happened in Tripoli since,” he said, adding that violence in cities including Benghazi, Baida and Zawia has only served to turn local security forces against the regime.

    Al Jazeera was also suffering interference on the Arabsat satellite frequency, which Libyans were previously able to turn to as a main source of information on the protests. The news network traced the source of the jamming to a Libyan intelligence building south of the capital.

    Heather Morayef, a Libya researcher for Human Rights Watch (HRW), agreed that the difficulty in communicating with people on the ground was making it hard to monitor the situation.

    Based on information from local hospitals, HRW has estimated that security forces carried out at least 233 unlawful killings in the town of Benghazi. It has been difficult to estimate the number killings in Tripoli on Sunday night and Monday.

    Despite recent killings, human rights groups are hopeful. “It has been fantastic, not just the fact that the world is finally interested in Libya, but also the courage of Libyans to actually take personal risks,” Morayef said.

    “In 1996, Gaddafi’s regime killed 1,200 prisoners on one day because the world didn’t know about it,” she explained in a phone interview.

    As recently as 2006, when security forces killed approximately 20 demonstrators outside the Italian embassy in Tripoli, the regime was able to keep the deaths under wraps.

    Five years later, Gaddafi’s government no longer enjoys the same impunity, rights groups said. New technology has empowered Libyans and they appear to have taken courage from successful uprisings in neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt.

    There has also been a new found willingness to speak to the media, despite the high risk of repercussion.

    On Monday, for instance, the house of Jumaa al-Asti, a senior official with the general union of trade and industry, was surrounded by security forces.

    Al-Asti appears to have drawn negative attention from security forces after he criticised Gaddafi’s regime in an interview with Al Jazeera.

    Bacre Ndiaye, director of the Human Rights Council at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, a United Nations organisation, told Al Jazeera that his office is facing difficulties accessing information about the situation on the ground in Libya.

    “There is obstruction to international communication, the use of the internet,” he said. “We’ve never had an office there, and we have very little source of independent information.”

    Ndiaye said the number of people killed is likely to be much higher than initial estimates.

    Yet he noted that, despite the violence, Libyans have not backed down in their demands for fundamental political change.
    “What we have seen all over [the region], is wall of fear has crumbled, people are no longer fearing to ask for their rights,” Ndiaye said.

    Al Jazeera


    Letter from Cairo

    On the Square

    Were the Egyptian protesters right to trust the military?

    by Wendell Steavenson February 28, 2011


    Cairo’s Tahrir Square on the night of February 11th, following the announcement that Hosni Mubarak was leaving office. Protesters hugged soldiers, who climbed out of their tanks to join the party. Photograph by Benedicte Kurzen.

    Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/28/110228fa_fact_steavenson#ixzz1EhsiHQ8M



    Defiant Gaddafi vows to fight on


    In televised speech, Libyan leader blames youths inspired by region’s revolutions for unrest and vows to die a “martyr”.

    Last Modified: 22 Feb 2011 16:53 GMT
    Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, has vowed to fight on and die a “martyr”, calling on his supporters to take back the streets from protesters demanding his ouster, shouting and pounding his fist in a furious speech on state TV.Gaddafi, clad in brown robes and turban, spoke on Tuesday from a podium set up in the entrance of a bombed-out building that appeared to be his Tripoli residence hit by US air raids in the 1980s and left unrepaired as a monument of defiance.”I am a fighter, a revolutionary from tents … I will die as a martyr at the end,” he said.”I have not yet ordered the use of force, not yet ordered one bullet to be fired … when I do, everything will burn.”He called on supporters to take to the streets to attack protesters. “You men and women who love Gaddafi …get out of your homes and fill the streets,” he said. “Leave your homes and attack them in their lairs … Starting tomorrow the cordons will be lifted, go out and fight them.””From tonight to tomorrow, all the young men should form local committees for popular security,” he said, telling them to wear a green armband to identify themselves. “The Libyan people and the popular revolution will control Libya.”The speech, which appeared to have been taped earlier, was aired on a screen to hundreds of supporters massed in Tripoli’s central Green Square.Shouting in the rambling speech, Gaddafi declared himself “a warrior” and proclaimed: “Libya wants glory, Libya wants to be at the pinnacle, at the pinnacle of the world”.At times the camera panned out to show a towering gold-coloured monument in front of the building, showing a fist crushing a fighter jet with an American flag on it – a view that also gave the strange image of Gaddafi speaking alone from behind a podium in the building’s dilapidated lobby, with no audience in front of him. 




    The project for a new Arab century


    The birth pangs of a new Middle East are being felt, but not in the way many outsiders envisioned.

    Mohammed Khan Last Modified: 22 Feb 2011 15:17 GMT
    One constituency the US has long ignored in the Arab world is the people [GALLO/GETTY] 

    No sooner did former US president George W. Bush come into power in January 2001 than a much vaunted neo-conservative doctrine came into full swing, wreaking havoc across the Middle East. Throughout the eight years of the Bush presidency, the levers of power – the political, the economic, the scholarly and, importantly, the military – were all employed towards one ultimate goal: The project for the new American century.

    Bush’s neo-con backers had prepared the manual for his presidency well before time. With their man in power, the greatest force of Western power since the Roman Empire set about changing the world in the name of neo-conservatism, to “promote American global leadership”, we were told.

    At the receiving end of the mighty American military-industrial complex were the people of the Arab world. The basic premise was to utilise maximum US force, power and influence to create a new Middle East, one obedient to the interests and objectives of the US. The central focus was the preservation of the superiority of Israel and the utilisation of American hard-power to eliminate any threats posed to it. The benign undercurrent, we were told, was the need to spread democracy across the region. After all, democracies do not fight wars against one other.

    The scorecard of the Bush doctrine is there for all to see: “Shock and awe” was unleashed against Iraq in the pursuit of this project; the Palestinians in Gaza were collectively imprisoned for having the audacity to vote for Hamas; Lebanon was brutalised by Israel with the tacit backing of the US in an effort to destroy Hezbollah; Iran became the new public enemy number one (after Iraq had been dealt with of course); the Gulf states went along quietly arming themselves in the name of stability and North African dictators were given free rein to fight “Islamism” – also in the name of stability.

    With American hyper-power on full display over this period, there was little doubting the contention that in the realm of international relations, “the end of history” was indeed being reached in the absence of any challenger to the formidable US military might. “Liberty” to Arabs, it seemed, was being brought on the back of American battle tanks. The destruction wrought on the region over this period was apparently “the birth pangs” of a new Middle East.

    It’s the people, stupid

    How times change. The human and capital cost, however, of the Iraq adventure almost bled the US economy dry. The invasion became so bogged down that the political will to continue the war soon weakened. The thought of expanding the military adventure to other lands similarly evaporated. Post-Bush, the Americans were now left grappling with “soft-power”, to persuade, to diplomatically engage with Arab/Iranian leaderships in order to resolve disputes. In the midst of this power play in the region, one constituency which the US had long ignored (and continues to ignore) is the people.

    Toppling disobedient leaders and oiling the wheels of pliant ones proved useful so long as the populations of these countries remained voiceless. As the people begin to find their voices, however, the Middle East as we have long known it is beginning to alter. Unfortunately for the decision-makers in the US (and their policy advisers and legions of “intellectual” think tanks) the dramatic changes are not in the direction that they had conceived.

    The catalyst for the political earthquake that we are currently witnessing was a massive popular uprising in Tunisia at the end of 2010. Emboldened by the overthrow of the brutal regime of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, the people of Egypt then took to the streets demanding reform. In just 18 days, Egyptian civil society, which we had been told by regional “experts” either did not exist or was spineless, broke the shackles of oppression and overcame a dictator whose regime had become synonymous with abuse and corruption. Egypt had finally been released from 30 years of political imprisonment.

    That Hosni Mubarak continued to breed fear about the “chaos” that his removal would unleash and his foreign backers continued to maintain the need for “stability” and “orderly” change, showed the total lack of understanding on their part of the momentous changes that were being played out. The revolutionary bug has now spread across the wider region with people in Algeria, Yemen, Bahrain and Libya currently battling despotism, while leaderships in Jordan, Syria and Morocco (to name but a few) consider ways of preventing the tide of “people power” from sweeping their shores.

    ‘Islands of stability’

    Consider for a moment the extent to which various US administrations have suffered from an ailment which, for wont of a better description, we will call “foot in mouth syndrome”. The shah of Iran was an “island of stability” in the troubled Middle East, according to the then US president, Jimmy Carter. A short time after these illustrious words were spoken, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was dethroned; Iran had witnessed an Islamic revolution and US policy in the country was found lacking. Around the time that Iran’s new Islamic leadership swept to power, Egypt too was undergoing change, this time in the form of the presidency of Hosni Mubarak who came to power in 1981 following his predecessor’s assassination.

    However, after almost 30 years of stern one-man rule, Egyptian civil society revolted against Mubarak’s despotism, seeking his ouster in January 2011, precisely a decade after Bush’s first inauguration. What were the very first utterances of the US administration under Barack Obama, as protesters gathered on Egypt’s streets? “Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable …” said Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state. Her assessment, reminiscent of the meanderings about Iran, could not have been more wrong.

    The islands of stability that the US has traditionally favoured are not the same sort that the people of the Arab world have desired. While Iraq under Saddam Hussein was ripe for invasion and “democratic change”, the hunger for reform on the part of populations in other parts of the region also subjected to Saddam-like repression was not felt by the US. Where the American military brought democracy to Iraq, the Arab people are now battling to bring democracy to themselves. Should we then be surprised that the neo-con intellectual machine that planned change in the Middle East under Bush is now largely silent? While their project has failed, a new Arab people’s project is beginning to blossom.

    If any clear evidence of US opposition to the people’s wishes in the region were needed, the Obama administration willingly obliged on February 18. The UN Security Council (UNSC) held a vote to condemn Israeli settlement building in the occupied West Bank as illegal and to demand an immediate end to all such activity. Settlement building is a particular sore among Palestinians and the wider Arab population. While 14 out of the 15 UNSC members backed the resolution, the US issued its first veto under Obama, damning the Palestinian Territories to further Israeli expansionism – well in keeping with the American spirit of defying global opinion. The PR spin on the veto will no doubt attempt to portray the US measure as some sort of noble endeavour. The nobleness was certainly in Israel’s favour.

    Moment in history
    When I was an undergraduate, the most fascinating, most closely scrutinised event that all students of the Middle East were exposed to was the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran. That was a truly momentous event. The repercussions for the Middle East were staggering. Political Islam came to the fore as an academic discipline. The political power play in the region shifted with alliances quickly emerging against Iran for fear that its brand of revolutionary zeal would spread. That revolution continues to captivate.
    More than 30 years later, however, the new crop of undergraduates will be evaluating perhaps an even more momentous event: That of February 11, 2011, when Egypt, the Arab world’s most populous nation, one at the core of the region’s political, economic and security affairs, defeated its very own despotism, rid itself of fear and raised expectations of a new era of political relations in the Middle East. Incidentally, Mubarak was forced out precisely 32 years from the day when the shah of Iran was deposed.
    While the people of Tunisia wrote the introduction to what we can call the unfolding “project for the new Arab century”, the people of Egypt have just completed its defining first chapter. What conclusions can be drawn from these historic events is far too early to gauge. What is certain, however, is that many more chapters will be written before the political dust settles. Safe to say, nevertheless, that the birth pangs of a new Middle East are now definitely being felt, but not in ways that many outsiders imagined.







    Mohammed Khan is a political analyst based in the UAE.
    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.









    Volledige toespraak HIER

    Verslag toespraak Khadaffi (NOS,http://nos.nl/artikel/220656-live-protest-in-libie-22-februari.html ):

    16.51 uur: Kadhafi spreekt

    Kadhafi is zijn toespraak begonnen. Hij lijkt boos en geeft “agenten en lafaards” de schuld van de rellen van de afgelopen dagen. Volgens Kadhafi willen de Libiërs geen revolutie. Hij bekritiseert Arabische media. Volgens Kadhafi is Libië het leidende land in Afrika, Azië en Latijns-Amerika. “Alleen Muamar Kadhafi is de leider van de revolutie.”

    16.59 uur: ‘Ik zal het land niet verlaten’

    Kadhafi zal niet vrijwillig vertrekken, zei hij. “Ik zal in Libië sterven als een martelaar.” Hij hoort thuis in Libië, net als zijn voorvaderen. Naar eigen zeggen is Kadhafi een bedoeïenenstrijder die Libië de glorie heeft gebracht. In zijn toespraak noemt hij ook ‘de baarden’, kennelijk verwijzend naar het islamitische verzet in zijn land. Het protest in het oosten van het land zou islamitisch geïnspireerd zijn. Hij zucht.

    17.04 uur: Bombardementen uit 1986

    Kadhafi benadrukt dat hij praat uit het huis dat in 1986 is gebombardeerd door de Amerikanen. Hij vraagt aan zijn tegenstanders, vooral het islamitische verzet, waar zij waren toen hij het opnam tegen de VS en Groot-Brittannië.

    17.08 uur: Kadhafi raast maar door

    Kadhafi lijkt nog niet van stoppen te weten. Hij roemt zijn eigen verleden in allerlei oorlogen die hij heeft gestreden. Hij beschuldigt aan drugs verslaafde jongeren ervan dat zij activiteiten kopiëren uit Tunesië en Egypte.

    17.15 uur: ‘Ik zal doorvechten’

    Kadhafi: “Ik zal doorvechten voor het Libische volk tot mijn laatste druppel bloed.” Hij zei dat hij tot nu toe geen geweld heeft gebruikt, maar niet zal aarzelen om dat te doen als dat nodig is. Kadhafi kondigt aan dat er morgen nieuwe volkscomité worden ingesteld. Hij roept zijn aanhang op om morgen de straat op te gaan om hem te steunen. De betogers zijn in Kadhafi’s ogen “ratten, huurlingen en misdadigers” die het Libische volk niet vertegenwoordigen, maar erop uit zijn om Libië te veranderen in een “nieuw Afghanistan”.

    17.20 uur: Groen boek

    Hij pakt zijn groene boek erbij en begint wetten en straffen voor te lezen, zo lijkt het. Hij zegt dat opposanten zonder mededogen worden geëxecuteerd. Het kan nog wel even gaan duren zo. Toespraak uiteraard ook te volgen op Journaal24.

    17.26 uur: Jeltsin, Tiananmenplein

    Hij gaat maar door. Noemt opstanden in Rusland en China. De Libische staatstelevisie laat in een splitscreen de aanhang van Kadhafi zien die op een plein staat te zwaaien met portretten en vlaggen. Hij spreekt ook uitgebreid over Irak.

    17.35 uur: Hij gaat maar door

    Hij leest nu voor van een papier. Hij is inmiddels veertig minuten aan het woord.

    17.39 uur: ‘Staat van ontkenning’

    Wael Ghonim, één van de initiatiefnemers van de opstand in Egypte twittert:

    “#Qaddafi is living in a denial just like the other dictators. Same shit different asshole.”

    17.44 uur: Lang

    We naderen het uur. Al-Jazeera heeft inmiddels een nieuwe tolk ingezet. Kadhafi spreekt uitgebreid over zijn verzet tegen Amerika in de jaren tachtig. Hij hemelt ook andere geweldige prestaties uit het verleden op.

    17.51 uur: Uur

    Kadhafi is nu een uur aan het woord. Eigenlijk is het niet duidelijk of het live is of is opgenomen. Hij neemt een slokje water, kennelijk om de stembanden nog eens te smeren.

    17.56 uur: Spreekt betogers weer toe

    Kadhafi vraagt zich af wat de betogers toch bezielt. Ze hebben toch alles? Welvaart, voorspoed. Waarom zouden ze het land te gronde richten. Noemde hij daar het woord ‘tenslotte’? Kennelijk ook nog een technisch foutje, waardoor hij iets moet herhalen. Hij zegt dat de jongeren, onder invloed van buitenlandse agenten, onmogelijk het land kunnen verwoesten. En willen de Libiërs dan dat het land wordt geleid door mannen met baarden? (zie hier de grote overeenkomst met Wilders, maar ook Afshin Ellian, Hans Jansen en alle Hasbarabloggers, FS)

    18.00 uur: Al-Jazeera houdt ermee op

    Al-Jazeera schakelt terug naar de presentator. Ook wij laten de toespraak nu ook maar even voor wat het is.

    18.07 uur: Eindelijk afgelopen

    Oh, nu toch afgelopen. Na ruim een uur is Kadhafi uitgesproken. Aan het eind steekt hij zijn vuist omhoog. Hij wordt omhelsd door enkele aanhangers. Daarna stapt hij in een auto en rijdt weg, omringd door juichende aanhangers.


    The King of King’s speech


    Al Jazeera’s senior policy analyst says Gaddafi’s threats were no different from those of any foreign occupier.

    Marwan Bishara Last Modified: 22 Feb 2011 19:25 GMT
    Gaddafi has ruled Libya for the past 42 years with an iron fist, but insists he has no official role [EPA] 

    Muammar Gaddafi is dangerously in denial. Alas, he’s been that way for a long time.
    Gaddafi has ruled Libya for the past 42 years with iron fist, but insists he has no official role and therefore couldn’t resign. Otherwise, he would have done that long ago!
    He thinks of himself as Zaim – a guru leader – or the king of kings of Africa as referred to himself repeatedly the last couple of years.
    How do you resign from greatness, he wondered! After recounting his heroism, sacrifice and courage over the last few decades.
    In reality, he wasted his country’s fortunes, misused its sources and violated its people. He misspent hundreds of billions of dollars in revenues from oil.
    He commands the state budget along with his family, and yet he insists he has no money, no fortune and no belonging to give away.
    Why would he need any of that when he de facto had claim on the whole country.
    One is speechless listening to him telling Libyans: Go ahead take back your oil.
    Like father like son
    Gaddafi senior, like Gaddafi junior before him on Monday, went on rambling endlessly in Tuesday’s televised address, with little coherence, many threats and more political blackmail.
    Speaking to both domestic audience and Western decision makers, he raised the spectre of civil war, bloodbath and the threat of al-Qaeda takeover in various parts of the country.
    He warned he would use all or any means to prevent the breakdown of Libya.
    Over the last few days, his regime has killed hundreds and reportedly using his air force to bomb Libyan cities, but insists he hasn’t ordered the use of force yet.
    But he did threaten to kill all those participating in the ongoing upheaval, in accordance with the Libyan law, as he put it.
    Worse, he threatened to burn the land, behaving as if his rule was a foreign occupation.
    For many years, Qaddafi, his family and tribe have maintained their rule through the maintenance and deformation of the very tribal order he’s been warning against.
    He’s used political blackmail and financial bribes and unveiled threats of force to stay at the helm of the regime.
    In the process, much of the country’s wealth was wasted. And so was any chance of development as his dictatorship suppressed pluralism, creativity and freedom of expression.
    Meanwhile, unemployment in this “rentier economy” has shot from one-fourth to one-third unemployment year after year.
    Gaddafi has turned a country rich in oil to a poor country in more than one way.
    Dangerous call to arms
    While Gaddafi admitted that the police has refused to confront or shoot at the demonstrations, he called on his loyal and violent “popular committees” to defend his “revolution”, either individually or by joining forces with members of their tribes.
    Certainly, the most deadly and dangerous force in the coming days will be those popular committees and their association with the private militias of Gaddafi’s regime, his sons, cousins and tribe.
    It seems that these  well-armed and well-financed militias have been carrying out the worst violence against the peaceful demonstrators. Possibly aided by mercenaries from various neighbouring countries.
    Unless the Libyan army puts an end to the violations and violence of the militias, the ongoing confrontation might continue to escalate.

    Alas, there is little information as to today’s relationship between the army and the militias, but one suspects it shouldn’t be a good one as the militias have been used primarily to keep the army in check.
    That’s why Arab and international decision makers must try and deter the escalation of violence by making it clear that those committing the crimes against the Libyan people will have no future in their country, but would eventually be punished for their crimes.
    And that the army has a responsibility to protect the people and the unity of the country.

    Al Jazeera




    From protest to revolution


    Anger at inequality isn’t confined to Tunisia or Egypt – where uprisings give a blueprint for other nations.

    Dan Hind Last Modified: 20 Feb 2011 17:36 GMT
    An Egyptian passes revolutionary graffiti in Cairo. But with members of Mubarak’s government remaining in the cabinet, what will the uprising mean for the country – and for oppressed masses across the world? [GALLO/GETTY]  

    The popular uprising in Egypt is still less than three weeks old. We still cannot know how it will end – whether the ruling party will make some concessions and cling on to power within a new government – or whether a united opposition will sweep away Mubarak’s apparatus. And we cannot tell what kind of regime will emerge.

    The revolutions that overthrew the Soviet system in Central and Eastern Europe did not always empower the dissidents who risked the most in the struggle for freedom. Former secret policemen and their allies in organised crime often proved more adept in the years that followed than the idealists they once tormented.

    But for all the uncertainty, Egypt has already shaken the region and the world. For those watching in Europe and the US, it has put an end to any lazy notion that the alternative to corrupt dictatorship in the Middle East is chaos or Islamic extremism. The worldly realists, with their regretful talk of the need for moderation, now stand exposed as power-worshipping fantasists. The Christians and Muslims crying “one hand, one hand”, as they call for an end to Mubarak’s tyranny have made a farce of decades of Western commentary and analysis.

    Standing as one

    The regime itself did all it could to encourage sectarian tension in the country, while its supporters in the West pretended it was a bulwark against religious violence. But, despite all the efforts to destroy civil society through torture and the organised suspicion of a police state, people have found each other.

    Millions are being transformed by the experience of a public life without fear. In the words of one of the protestors, Wael Gawdat: “At Tahrir Square you see different Egyptians from the ones you see on the subway or the bus. No fights and no discomfort from the crowded setting. In short, Egypt is more beautiful in Tahrir Square.”

    The decision of the Egyptian people to take responsibility for their future – their decision to become citizens – enlivens, even delights. This is a movement that isn’t being orchestrated by leaders in the way we have been led to expect. People are acting as though they are free and so becoming free.

    The Egyptians, like the Tunisians – like people all over the world – want a share in the vast wealth that their rulers and a handful of insiders have hoarded for themselves. They want dignity and a life they can call their own. For the moment they are not afraid and they are united. They are showing us the truth of David Hume’s remark that our rulers ‘have nothing to support them but opinion’. The Egyptian people no longer believed the Mubarak regime was as good as any other that might be established. They have seen for themselves that there can be stability without torture.

    Rejecting injustice

    They do not believe that the distribution of property is just and they do not accept the legitimacy of their government. They have changed their opinion of what is possible and right. Every day of freedom they enjoy is a message to the rest of us; things do not have to be as they are.

    So the Egyptians and the Tunisians have swept away the prejudices that have so long confused and corrupted the understanding of people in the West. More than that, they have also reminded Europeans and American what political action can achieve – and what it feels like to be free.

    We have long been entranced by the idea that shopping and voting once every four years for one wing or other of the pro-business party would be enough to give us the good life. Vast public relations campaigns fostered the sense that a better future could be had, if only we chose wisely from the list of approved candidates. All the while the rich have taken more and left the rest of us to struggle with insecurity, anxiety and mounting debts. The people in Cairo didn’t look to charismatic politicians or party machines to do the work for them. They moved faster than their leaders.

    You can do it, too

    In the West, there have been stirrings of dissent as the scale of the economic crisis becomes apparent and the reassurances of the mainstream media – that good times are just around the corner, come to sound ever more threadbare. Students, and young people in particular, have already shaken off the wishful passivity of the previous generation. But for the most part the outrage and sense of betrayal have expressed themselves in ways that pose no real threat to the governing establishment or the opulent minority who control it.

    The Tea Party in the United States and Conservatives in Britain promise change while working to ensure that everything that matters stays the same. The right in both countries has benefited from the failure of their centrist opponents to address the fundamental causes of recession, unemployment and social breakdown. It is as though the entire political establishment has adopted the stultifying uniformity of a one-party state. There is a bankruptcy of policy and of principle that will, perhaps, finally compel us to take matters into our own hands.

    In the presidential campaign of 2008, Barack Obama never tired of telling voters they were the change they had been looking for. The people of Tunisia and Egypt have turned a clever slogan into an undeniable fact. They did not wait for permission to take action. If we want another world we must all learn from them.

    Can we look beyond the stereotypes offered by our media, and see that the Egyptians and the Tunisians are now daring us to be free?

    Yes, we can.

    Dan Hind has worked in publishing since 1998 and is the author of two well-acclaimed books: The Return of the Public and The Threat to Reason. He is also a regular contributor to The Guardian.

    Follow him on Twitter: @danhind

    Hind’s ‘The Return of the Public’ was first published by Verso, the UK publishing house.   

    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

    Al Jazeera



    Region in turmoil


    Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain: A roundup of the popular protests that have swept the region over the last two months.

    Last Modified: 22 Feb 2011

    Click on a country for more information. Click on a highlighted country above for Al Jazeera’s coverage of those protests.

    The world’s attention has been focused on a handful of countries – Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain and Libya – since the first popular protests broke out in Tunisia in December. But nearly a dozen countries in the region have seen political unrest, and the protest movement shows no signs of stopping.

    Below is a summary of the demonstrations so far, and links to our coverage. You can also click a country on the map above for more information.


    Protesters in Tunisia ousted Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, their president for more than 23 years, after nearly a month of protests.

    The protests started when a street vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi, set himself on fire after his cart was confiscated by police. His anger – over unemployment, poverty and corruption – resonated in Tunisia, and led to weeks of street protests against Ben Ali’s autocratic government. Security forces cracked down brutally on many of the protests, with more than 200 people killed. But the rallies continued, and Ben Ali eventually fled the country for exile in Saudi Arabia.

    His departure on January 14 has not stopped the protest movement, though: Many Tunisians continue to demand the ouster of Mohamed Ghannouchi, the prime minister, and fellow members of the Constitutional Democratic Rally (Ben Ali’s party) who remain in power.


    After Ben Ali, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak was the second Arab autocrat to resign, his nearly 30-year rule brought to an end by 18 days of protests.

    The revolt began on January 25, when tens of thousands of protesters marched against Mubarak’s government. A “day of rage” on January 28 drew even larger crowds in downtown Cairo, where they were attacked brutally by Egyptian security forces. They stood their ground, though, and the police eventually withdrew, ceding control of Tahrir Square to the protesters.

    That led to a two-week standoff between the protesters and the government, with the former occupying Tahrir Square and fending off a sustained assault from government-sponsored thugs. Mubarak was at first defiant, pledging reforms – he sacked his cabinet and appointed a vice president, longtime intelligence chief Omar Suleiman – but vowing to remain in office. In a televised address on February 10, he promised to finish his term.

    Behind the scenes, though, Mubarak had clearly lost the support of the military, and Suleiman announced his departure in a brief statement less than 24 hours later.

    Egyptians have continued to stage rallies, though, with hundreds of thousands demanding that the new military government pursue real democratic reforms.


    Longtime autocrat Muammar Gaddafi has reportedly lost control of eastern Libya, and his army, supported by foreign mercenaries, is waging a savage war against civilians.

    Small protests in January led to larger rallies in mid-February, mostly in the east – in Benghazi, Libya’s second city, and other towns like Al-Bayda. The protests continued to grow over the next few days, with thousands of people in the streets on February 17 and 18 – and dozens dead, many killed by snipers.

    Less than a week later, Benghazi was reportedly in the hands of the protesters, and demonstrations had spread to the capital Tripoli. Eyewitnesses reported Libyan military jets bombing civilians, and gangs of mercenaries roaming the streets, firing indiscriminately.

    Gaddafi’s 42-year rule, the longest in the Arab world, has been sustained by widespread political repression and human rights abuses. Protesters are also angry about his economic mismanagement: Libya has vast oil wealth – more than half of its GDP comes from oil – but that money has not filtered down. Unemployment is high, particularly among the country’s youth, which accounts for more than one-third of the population.


    The Algerian government has so far kept a lid on protests, most of which have been centered in the capital, Algiers.

    Demonstrators staged several scattered rallies in January, mostly over unemployment and inflation. They planned a major rally in the capital on February 12, when a crowd – estimates of its size vary between 2,000 and 10,000 – faced off with nearly 30,000 riot police who sealed off the city. Dozens of people were arrested, but the rally remained peaceful; demonstrators chanetd slogans like “Bouteflika out,” referring to president Abdelaziz Bouteflika, Algeria’s ruler for the last 12 years.

    A second rally, on February 19, attracted a smaller crowd – in the hundreds – which was again outnumbered by riot police. The government also suspended train service and set up roadblocks outside the capital. Several people were arrested.

    Bouteflika has tried to head off further protests by promising to lift the country’s decades-old emergency law.


    The first significant protests in Morocco broke out on February 20, when tens of thousands of people (37,000, according to the country’s interior minister) took to the streets. They were organised by a loose coalition of human rights groups, journalists and labor unions.

    Demonstrators demanded not the ouster of King Mohammed VI, but instead a series of more modest reforms. They want the king to give up some of his powers – right now, he can dismiss parliament and impose a state of emergency – and to dismiss his current cabinet. “The king should reign, not rule,” read one banner held by protesters.

    The rallies were peaceful, though acts of vandalism did happen afterwards: Dozens of banks were burned down, along with more than 50 other buildings. (The culprits are unknown.)

    Mohammed has promised “irreversible” political reforms, though he has yet to offer any specifics.


    Protests in Jordan started in mid-January, when thousands of demonstrators staged rallies in Amman and six other cities. Their grievances were mostly economic: Food prices continue to rise, as does the country’s double-digit inflation rate.

    Jordan’s King Abdullah tried to defuse the protests earlier this month by sacking his entire cabinet. The new prime minister, Marouf Bakhit, promised “real economic and political reforms.”

    But the firing – Abdullah’s perennial response to domestic unrest – did little to dampen the protests. Thousands of people took to the streets once again on February 18 to demand constitutional reforms and lower food prices. At least eight people were injured during that rally.


    Anti-government protests have continued for a week, and show no sign of stopping. The demonstrations began on February 14, when thousands converged on Pearl Roundabout to protest against the government; they were later dispersed by security forces who used deadly force.

    In the following days, funeral marches and other rallies also came under fire by police; they have since been withdrawn, and the army has allowed peaceful rallies to continue in the roundabout.

    Protesters started out calling for economic and political reform, but many demonstrators are now calling for the ouster of King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa.

    The protest movement largely draws from Bahrain’s Shia population, a majority group that often complains of oppression from the country’s Sunni rulers. They argue that the king’s economic policies favor the Sunni minority. Khalifa tried to defuse tensions by giving each Bahraini family a gift of 1,000 dinars (US $2,650), but the move won him little support.


    Rallies in Yemen have continued for nearly two weeks, with the bulk of the protesters concentrated in Sana’a, the capital; the southern city of Aden; and Taiz, in the east. Their grievances are numerous: As much as one-third of the country is unemployed, and the public blames government corruption for squandering billions in oil wealth.

    Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh conceded little during a news conference in the Yemeni capital on Monday. He promised reforms, but warned against what he called “coups and seizing power through anarchy and killing.” He also offered a dialogue with opposition parties, an offer that was quickly rejected.

    He has also likened the protests to a “virus” sweeping the country. His security forces have responded to the rallies with deadly force, particularly in Aden, where at least ten people have been killed.


    Thousands of people have rallied in the northern province of Sulaymaniyah during four days of protests over corruption and the economy. At least five people have been killed, and dozens more injured, by Kurdish security forces who opened fire on the crowds.

    Several other small protests have popped up across the country in recent days: Nearly 1,000 people in Basra demanded electricity and other services; 300 people in Fallujah demanded that the governor be sacked; dozens in Nassiriyah complained about unemployment.

    Iraqi protesters, unlike their counterparts in many other countries, are not (yet) calling for the government’s ouster. Instead, they’re demanding better basic services: electricity, food, and an effort to stamp out corruption.

    In response to the unrest, the Iraqi parliament adjourned for a week, its members instructed to travel home and meet with constituents – an odd response, perhaps, given that the government’s inaction is a leading cause of popular anger.


    Opposition movements in Iran have tried to stage several protests in recent days, and the movement’s two unofficial leaders – Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi – remain under house arrest.

    The first round of protests, on February 14, drew people to the streets for the first time in months. At least two people were killed, and several others wounded, according to Iranian officials.

    Tens of thousands of people then tried to rally on Sunday, but were met by riot police wielding steel batons and clubs. Three more people were killed. More protests may be planned for the coming days, and Iranians have resorted to “silent protests,” small marches aimed at avoiding conflict with the security forces.

    Al Jazeera


    Students killed at Yemen rally


    Protests turn deadly as the president’s supporters open fire on anti-government demonstrators in the capital, Sanaa.

    Last Modified: 22 Feb 2011 23:19 GMT
    A protester displays the message ‘Irhal’ (leave) written on his arm, meant for President Saleh [Reuters] 

    Two students have been killed in Yemen after more than 1,000 anti-government protesters rallied near Sanaa University.

    Witnesses said supporters of Ali Abdullah Saleh, the Yemeni president, opened fire at the protesters late on Tuesday night.

    Tom Finns, the editor of Yemen Times, quoted a doctor as saying the two students died from bullet wounds and that 20 others were injured, some by bullets and some by rocks being thrown.

    Finns told Al Jazeera that police had surrounded the scene and at least five ambulances had left carrying the injured. 

    Earlier in the day, clashes broke out as a crowd of about 4,000 anti-government protesters moved close to where Saleh’s loyalists were bunkered down.

    About 1,000 students had spent a second night camped at a square near Sanaa University, dubbed Al-Huriya (Liberty) Square, where they have erected a huge tent.

    Across the country, tens of thousands rallied on Tuesday calling for Saleh’s resignation.

    Continued violence

    Demonstrators, inspired by revolts in Tunisia and Egypt, have been protesting for almost two weeks against the rule of Saleh, in power since 1978.

    On Monday, witnesses said a teenager was killed and four people wounded in a clash with soldiers in the country’s southern city of Aden.

    Officers stood by as demonstrators marched in the eastern town of al-Shiher, chanting “Down, down with Saleh”.

    In Taiz, Yemen’s second-largest city, thousands of protesters marched in the Safir Square. An activist, Ahmed Ghilan, said hundreds have been camping in the square for more than a week, renaming it “Freedom Square”.

    In Aden, schools closed, most government employees were not working and many shops were closed as hundreds gathered for another round of protests.

    But mounting pressure has so far yielded little result as Saleh insists he will only step down after national elections are held in 2013.

    He has said protesters demanding an end to his rule could not achieve their goal through “anarchy and killing”.

    He said on Monday that he had ordered troops not to fire at anti-government protesters, except in self-defence, but medical officials say at least 12 people had been killed in demonstrations before the latest deaths were reported on Tuesday.

    A spokesman for the opposition rebuffed Saleh’s offer of dialogue, while an influential group of Muslim religious leaders called for a national unity government that would lead the country to elections.




    Sins of the father, sins of the son


    While Gaddafi has relied on empty revolutionary slogans to maintain power, his son looks to oil money for his.

    Lamis Andoni Last Modified: 22 Feb 2011 10:53 GMT
    The Libyan leader has presented himself as the champion of the Palestinian cause [GALLO/GETTY] 

    The sheer brutality of the Libyan suppression of anti-government protests has exposed the fallacy of the post-colonial Arab dictatorships, which have relied on revolutionary slogans as their source of legitimacy.

    Ever since his ascension to power, through a military coup, in 1969, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has used every piece of revolutionary rhetoric in the book to justify his actions, which include consolidating power in the hands of his relatives and close associates and creating a network of security forces and militias to coerce Libyans into conforming to the whims of his cruel regime.

    Through his support for revolutionary movements in different parts of the world – ones, of course, which did not endanger his own rule – he has sought to portray himself as the ‘defender of the oppressed’, earning the wrath of the West in the process. But the people now courageously defying his regime’s savage suppression are sending the message that anti-Western slogans, even if occasionally backed up by support for just causes, can no longer sustain oppressive regimes in the region.

    A new era is underway in which leaders will be judged on their ability to represent the aspirations of the people and in which they will be held accountable for their actions. Issuing rallying cries against a foreign enemy, even when that enemy is very real, while inflicting injustice on one’s own people will no longer be permitted.

    Post-colonial Arab regimes, including those that rode the waves of or even at one point genuinely represented anti-colonial resistance, have had to resort to a reliance on secret police and draconian laws to subordinate their subjects. The lesson is clear: Without a representative democracy, Arab republics have metamorphosed into ugly hereditary dynasties that treat their countries like their own private companies.

    While trampling over the interests of his own people, Gaddafi has modeled himself as the champion of the Palestinian cause, reverting to the most fiery verbal attacks on Israel. But this is a recurring theme in a region where leaders must pay lip service to the plight of the Palestinians in order to give their regime the stamp of ‘legitimacy’. Gaddafi’s ‘support’, however, did not prevent him from deporting Palestinians living in Libya, leaving them stranded in the dessert, when he sought to “punish the Palestinian leadership” for negotiating with Israel.

    But even more cynical than his “pro-Palestinian” stand is his exploitation of the plight of the African people by anointing himself the leader of the continent. It is tragic, if reports prove to be true, that he used migrant sub-Saharan African labourers against the Libyan protesters. But it is, sadly, very believable that a ruthless dictator, driven hysterical by the prospect of losing his wealth and power, might pit the poor and marginalised against the poor and oppressed.

    The darling of the West

    Seif al-Islam, Gaddafi’s son who appeared on Libyan state television to warn that the demonstrators threatened to sink Libya into civil war, unlike his father, does not need to pretend to endorse the world’s underprivileged. For his power derives from something altogether different.

    When Seif warned that “rivers of blood” would flow if the protests did not stop, he was giving himself the right, merely by virtue of being his father’s son, to dismiss the grievances of millions of people and to issue outrageous threats.

    Seif may look and sound more sophisticated than his erratic father, but his performance was one of a feudal lord unable to fathom why his serfs would defy his authority.

    He has no need to employ his father’s tactic of invoking vacuous revolutionary rhetoric, for Gaddafi has successfully used the country’s Revolutionary Command Council and Revolutionary Committees – which are supposed to represent the interests of the people – to cement the power of his family and as tools with which to subjugate the masses.

    But Seif’s role has been secured not only by his power within the country. According to Vivienne Walt, a writer for Time Magazine, since the lifting of Western sanctions against Libya in 2005, Seif has acted “as an assurance” to the oil companies that have poured millions of dollars into the country.

    “In interviews with oil executives, all say that Seif is the person whom they would most like to see running Libya. He has made occasional appearances at the World Economic Forum. And during two visits to Libya, I’ve seen countless corporate executives from the US and Europe line up for appointments with Seif,” she recently wrote.

    It is little wonder Seif feels confident enough to make threats against the Libyan people without possessing so much as an official title. His position as the darling of the West, he clearly believes, entitles him to trample on the lives of others. And it may also explain the West’s hesitation over unequivocally condemning the sheer brutality of the Libyan regime.

    Thus, while the father ensured his grip on power by building a dictatorship with a claim to “revolutionary legitimacy,” Seif has been expected to secure the Western stamp of legitimacy by keeping the door to the country’s main source of wealth open for the oil companies to exploit.

    The father’s repression in the name of the revolution and the son’s status as an agent for the oil companies has created an oil-rich country where one-third of the population live below the poverty line and 30 per cent are unemployed. This is Gaddafi’s Libya.

    But the Libyan people are now shouting a loud goodbye to the Libya of Gaddafi and his family and, with great sacrifices, are building a new, freer country.

    Lamis Andoni is an analyst and commentator on Middle Eastern and Palestinian affairs.
    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.







    Al Jazeera




    Mubarakism Without Mubarak

    Why Egypt’s Military Will Not Embrace Democracy


    February 11, 2011

    Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak gave into the demands of the protesters today, leaving Cairo and stepping down from power. That came hours after a speech, broadcast live across the world yesterday, in which he refused to do so. Earlier that day, the Supreme Military Council released a statement — labeled its “first” communiqué — that stated that the military would ensure a peaceful transition of Mubarak out of office. In practice, it appears that power has passed into the hands of the armed forces. This act was the latest in the military’s creep from applauded bystander to steering force in this month’s protests in Egypt. Since the protest movement first took shape on January 25, the military has, with infinite patience, extended and deepened its physical control of the area around Tahrir Square (the focal point of the protests) with concrete barriers, large steel plates, and rolls of razor wire. In itself, the military’s growing footprint was the next act in a slow-motion coup — a return of the army from indirect to direct control — the groundwork for which was laid in 1952.

    The West may be worried that the crisis will bring democracy too quickly to Egypt and empower the Muslim Brotherhood. But the real concern is that the regime will only shed its corrupt civilians, leaving its military component as the only player left standing. Indeed, when General Omar Suleiman, the recently appointed vice president to whom Mubarak entrusted presidential powers last night, threatened on February 9 that the Egyptian people must choose between either the current regime or a military coup, he only increased the sense that the country was being held hostage.

    The Egyptian political system under Mubarak is the direct descendant of the republic established in the wake of the 1952 military coup that brought Gamal Abdel Nasser and the Free Officers to power. Nasser and the officers abolished Egypt’s limited parliamentary monarchy and ousted an entire generation of civilian political and judicial figures from public life. They created their own republic stocked with loyal military figures. Their one experiment with technocratic governance, allowing Egyptian legal experts to write a new basic document, was a failure. The experts’ draft had provisions for a strong parliament and limited presidency, which the officers deemed too liberal. They literally threw it into the wastebasket and started over, writing a constitution that placed immense power in the hands of the president.

    Such an arrangement would prove to work out well for the military, as every Egyptian president since 1953 has been an army officer. For two generations, the military was able, through the president, to funnel most of the country’s resources toward national security, arming for a series of ultimately disastrous wars with Israel. These defeats, combined with the government’s neglect of the economy, nearly drove the country to bankruptcy. Popular revolt erupted between 1975 and 1977 over the government’s economic policies. To regain control, the military turned its attention away from war and toward development. It gradually withdrew from direct control over politics, ceding power to domestic security forces and the other powerful backer of Egypt’s ruling party — small groups of civilian businessmen who benefited from their privileged access to government sales and purchases to expand their own fortunes.

    HIER verder lezen


    Riz Khan


    Libya’s lucrative ties


    As world leaders condemn violence against protesters, what is at stake for Western nations with close ties to Gaddafi?

    Riz Khan Last Modified: 22 Feb 2011 12:52 GMT
    Britain has been criticised for negotiating a string of oil and arms deals with Libya in recent years [GALLO/GETTY] 

    Why did the UK government on Monday cancel eight arms export licences for Libya?

    This comes after a warning from a legal adviser to the UN Commission on Human Rights who suggested that Britain may be found guilty of “complicity” for the killings of protesters by Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.


    Send us your views and get your voice on the air

    In the third quarter of 2010 alone, according to the Campaign Against Arms trade, the UK licensed over $6mn worth of ammunition to Libya, including sniper rifles and crowd control ammunition, which is suspected to have been used by the regime to suppress demonstrators.

    Although the UK has condemned the violent attacks on Libya’s protesters, in the past it has turned a blind eye to the country’s dubious human rights record for fear of risking lucrative oil, trade and arms deals.

    On Tuesday we examine the relationship between the two countries with Sir Richard Dalton, the former British ambassador to Libya; Dr. Mohamed al-Magariaf, the co-founder of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya; and Hafed al-Ghwell, a Libyan-American analyst.

    You can join the conversation. Watch this episode of Riz Khan live on Tuesday, February 22, at 1930GMT. Repeats can be seen on Wednesday at 0430GMT, 0830GMT and 1430GMT.

    Al Jazeera


    The Arab Revolts: Ten Tentative Observations

    by Mouin Rabbani

    [Arab dictators. Image by Saeb Khalil] [Arab dictators. Image by Saeb Khalil]

    The extraordinary developments in Tunisia and Egypt during the first six weeks of this year, and more recently in Bahrain, Libya, Yemen and elsewhere, have inaugurated a revolutionary moment in the Arab world not experienced since 1958. If sustained uprisings continue and spread, it has the potential to develop into an Arab 1848. Based on what we have witnessed thus far, the following observations appear relevant:

    1. The Arab world is a fundamentally different beast than Eastern Europe during the late 1980s. The latter was ruled by virtually identical regimes, organized within a single collective framework whose individual members were tightly controlled by an outside, crisis-riven power increasingly unable and unwilling to sustain its domination. By contrast, Arab regimes differ markedly in structure and character, the Arab League has played no role in either political integration or socio-economic harmonization, and the United States – still the dominant power in the Middle East – attaches strategic significance to maintaining and strengthening its regional position, as well as that of Israel.

    Whereas in Eastern Europe the demolition of the Berlin Wall symbolized the disintegration of not only the GDR but all regimes between the Danube and the USSR, the ouster of Ben Ali in Tunisia did not cause Mubarak’s downfall any more than change in Cairo is producing regime collapse in Libya or leading to the dissolution of the League of Arab States. More to the point, neither the Tunisian nor Egyptian regimes have yet been fundamentally transformed, and may even survive the current upheavals relatively intact. (The nature of the Libyan case is somewhat of an anomaly, with regime survival or comprehensive disintegration the only apparent options.)

    2. Many if not most Arab regimes are facing similar crises, which can be summarized as increasing popular alienation and resentment fueled by neo-liberal reforms. These reforms have translated into growing socio-economic hardship and disparities as the economy and indeed the state itself is appropriated by corrupt crony capitalist cliques; brutalization by arbitrary states whose security forces have become fundamentally lawless in pursuit of their primary function of regime maintenance; leaders that gratuitously trample institutions underfoot to sustain power and bequeath it to successors of their choice – more often than not blood relatives; and craven subservience to Washington despite its regional wars and occupations, as well as increasingly visible collusion with Israel proportional to the Jewish state’s growing extremism.

    Even the pretense of minimal Arab consensus on core issues such as Palestine has collapsed, and collectively the Arab states not only no longer exercise influence on the world stage, but have seen their regional role diminish as well, while Israel, Turkey and Iran have become the only local players of note. In a nutshell, Arab regimes no longer experience crises of legitimacy, because they have lost it irrevocably. In perception as well as reality, with respect to the political system as well as socio-economic policy, reform – in the sense of gradual, controlled change initiated and supervised by those in power – is not an option. Meaningful change is possible only through regime transformation.

    Furthermore, the contemporary Arab state in its various manifestations is incapable of self-generated transformation. This applies no less to Lebanon, whose elites have proven unwilling and unable to implement de-confessionalization as agreed in the 1989 Taif Agreement. With Iraq having demonstrated the catastrophic consequences of foreign intervention, sustained pressure by indigenous forces – perhaps only mass popular pressure – has emerged as the only viable formula.

    3. Arguably, the Tunisian uprising succeeded because no one anticipated that it could. An increasingly rapacious, repressive and narrowly-based ruling clique that seems to have lost its capacity for threat recognition, proved incapable of pro-actively deploying sufficient carrots and sticks to defuse the uprising. The violence it did unleash and extravagant promises it made – as well as their timing – only added fuel to the fire of revolt. Faced with a choice between removing their leader and imminent regime collapse, Tunisia’s elites and their Western sponsors hastily and unceremoniously forced Ben Ali out of the country.

    4. Although Egypt’s Mubarak was also initially slow to respond, he had the benefit of a significantly broader, better organized and more deeply entrenched regime whose preservation additionally remains an American strategic priority. Given the severity of the threat to his continued rule, Mubarak played his cards reasonably enough to at least avoid a fate identical to Ben Ali.

    After the initial gambit of unleashing the police and then battalions of thugs failed, Mubarak’s appointment of intelligence chief Omar Sulaiman to the vice presidency – vacant since Mubarak left it in 1981 – was never meant to appease the growing number of demonstrators demanding his immediate departure. Rather, Mubarak acted in order to retain the military (and Sulaiman’s) loyalty. By sacrificing the succession prospects of his wolverine son Gamal to the security establishment (and by extension restraining the boy’s insatiable cohorts), Mubarak père calculated that his generals would crush the uprising in order to consummate the deal. (He presumably intended to use the aftermath to re-insert Gamal into the equation, perhaps by scapegoating those that saved him.)

    With Washington positively giddy over Sulaiman’s appointment, the scenario was foiled only by the Egyptian people. Indeed, their escalatory response to Mubarak’s successive maneuvers – a resounding rejection of both reform and regime legitimacy – appears to have led the generals to conclude that the scale of the bloodbath required to crush the rebellion would at the very least shatter the military’s institutional coherence. No less alarmingly for them and for Washington in particular, Mubarak seemed determined to drag Sulaiman down with him if he wasn’t given a satisfactory exit.

    If in Tunisia the revolt’s arrival in the capital set alarm bells ringing, it appears that in Egypt the spread of mass protests beyond Cairo and Alexandria played an equally significant role. As towns and cities in the Suez Canal zone, Nile Delta, Sinai, and then Upper Egypt and even the Western Desert joined the uprising, and growing numbers of workers in state industries and institutions went on strike, it became clear Mubarak had to go, and go immediately. Since in contrast to Ben Ali he retained sufficient authority to prevent his own deportation, and therefore the ability to threaten his generals with genuine regime change, he was able to negotiate a less ignominious end in time to escape the massive crowds gathering around his palace, but apparently too late to fulfill Sulaiman’s leadership ambitions. Given that Sulaiman and Gamal between them effectively governed Egypt in recent years, their ouster (yet to be definitively confirmed in Sulaiman’s case) is of perhaps greater significance than Mubarak’s.

    5. The success of the Tunisian uprising inspired and helped spark the Egyptian revolt rather than produced the conditions for it. Indeed, there had been a steady growth of activism and unrest in Egypt for a number of years, which began to spike in the wake of the police murder of Khaled Said in Alexandria in June 2010 and then the December 31 government-organized bombing of a church in that same city. The Tunisian revolution, in other words, sprouted so easily on the banks of the Nile because it landed on fertile soil. The same can be said about protests and incipient rebellions in other Arab states in recent weeks and months. It is noteworthy that neither Tunisia nor even Egypt have – in contrast to Arab revolutionaries in the 1950s and 1960s – sought to export their experience. Rather, other Arabs have been taking the initiative to import what they perceive as a successful model for transformation.

    6. If Tunisia has largely existed on the Arab periphery, Egypt forms its very heart and soul, and the success of the Egyptian uprising is therefore of regional and strategic significance – a political earthquake. Indeed, where the ouster of Ben Ali was celebrated in the region on the grounds that an Arab tyrant had been deposed, many non-Egyptian Arabs responded to the fall of Mubarak as if they had themselves been his subjects – which in a sense they were.

    The impact of Egypt could already be observed the day Mubarak’s rule ended. Where Arab governments largely acted to suppress celebrations of Ben Ali’s removal, there were scant attempts to interfere with the popular euphoria that greeted the success of the Egyptian uprising. To the contrary, governments from Algiers to Ramallah to Sana’a rushed to demonstrate that– like Ben Ali – they “understood” the message emanating from their populations. And the message, of course, is that if Mubarak can fall then no autocrat is safe.

    In the coming months and years, it can reasonably be expected that Egypt will seek to re-assert a leading role among Arab states, and whether alone or in concert with others seek to balance Israeli, Turkish and Iranian influence in the region.

    7. Absent genuine regime change in Cairo, it appears unlikely that Egypt will formally renounce its peace treaty with Israel. It may however seek to restore unfettered sovereignty to Sinai by renegotiating key aspects of this agreement. More importantly, it seems inconceivable that Egypt will or can continue to play the role of regional strategic partner of Israel that was the hallmark of the Mubarak era. Rather, Egypt is likely to begin treating its relations with Israel as a bilateral matter. This in turn will place significant pressure on Israel’s relations with other Arab states, as well as the framework for domination through negotiation established with the Palestinians.

    8. The Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings, and incipient rebellions in a number of other Arab states, suggest that a new generation has come of political age and is seizing the initiative. Organized, even disciplined, but not constituted through traditional party or movement structures, the region’s protesting populations appear to be led by coalitions of networks, more often than not informal ones. This suggests that Arab regimes have been so successful in eradicating and marginalizing traditional opposition that their opponents today lack the kind of leaders who exercise meaningful control over a critical mass of followers, and whose removal or co-optation can therefore have a meaningful impact at ground level. Ironically, in his desperate last days the only party leaders Mubarak found to negotiate with represented little more than themselves.

    9. The current rebellions in the Arab world have been overwhelmingly secular in character and participation has spanned the entire demographic and social spectrum. This is likely to have a lasting political and cultural impact, particularly if this trend continues, and may form a turning point in the fortunes of Islamist movements who for almost three decades have dominated opposition to the established Arab order and foreign domination.

    10. The key issue in the coming months and years is not whether Arab states organize free and fair parliamentary elections and obtain certificates of good democratic conduct. Many probably will. Rather, the core question is whether the security establishment will continue to dominate the state or become an instrument that is subordinate to it. Most Arab states have in fact become police regimes in the literal sense of the word. Their militaries, while remaining enormously influential, have been politically neutralized, often by leaders who emerged from its ranks and – recognizing better than others the threat officer corps can pose – have relied on the forces of the Interior Ministry rather than soldiers to sustain their rule.

    That Ben Ali, himself a former Interior Minister, was the first to fly, and that intelligence chief Sulaiman may share a similar fate gives cause for optimism. By the same token, those who have seen Ben Ali and Mubarak fall can be expected to cling to power more tenaciously if effectively challenged. Qaddafi, whose head appears well on its way to a rusty pitchfork parading through the streets of Tripoli, is but a horrific case in point.




    Gaddafi defiant as state teeters


    Libyan leader vows to ‘fight on’ as his government loses control of key parts in the country and as top officials quit.

    Last Modified: 23 Feb 2011 08:54 GMT
    Protesters are said to be in control of several cities in Libya’s east [Reuters] 

    Muammer Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, clings to power in the face of mass protests demanding  his resignation, as parts of the country’s state structure appear to be disintegrating around him.

    Fears are growing that Libya’s state apparatus, once seen as a powerful and coherent entity, is facing collapse as key officials quit the government, with some joining the protesters, and as international isolation mounts.

    Speaking in a televised address on Tuesday evening, Gaddafi vowed to fight on and die a “martyr” on Libyan soil. He called on his supporters to take back the streets on Wednesday from protesters who are demanding that he step down.


    He also claimed that he had “not yet ordered the use of force”, warning that “when I do, everything will burn”.

    Gaddafi, who termed the protests an “armed rebellion”, said that security cordons set up by police and the military would be lifted on Wednesday, telling his supporters to “go out and fight [anti-government protesters]”.

    He blamed the uprising in the country on “Islamists”, and warned that an “Islamic emirate” has already been set up in Bayda and Derna, where he threatened the use of extreme force.

    “I am a fighter, a revolutionary from tents … I will die as a martyr at the end,” Gaddafi, who has been in power for 41 years, said.

    Several hundred people held a pro-Gaddafi rally in central Tripoli on Tuesday night, cheering the Libyan leader as he made his speech.

    Demonstrators in the eastern city of Benghazi, which is now controlled by anti-government protesters, angrily threw shoes at a screen showing the address.

    ‘Indications of state collapse’

    While Gaddafi has insisted that the country is stable, however, international leaders have warned that the growing violence and increasing numbers of government and military renouncements of Gaddafi’s leadership indicate that the state structure is in critical danger.

    William Hague, the British foreign minister, has said that there are “many indications of the structure of the state collapsing in Libya”.

    “The resignation of so many ambassadors and diplomats, reports of ministers changing sides within Libya itself, shows the system is in a very serious crisis,” he said.  

    Libyan diplomats across the world have either resigned in protest at the use of violence (including the alleged use of warplanes on civilian targets) against citizens, or renounced Gaddafi’s leadership, saying that they stand with the protesters.

    Late on Tuesday night, General Abdul-Fatah Younis, the country’s interior minister, became the latest government official to stand down, saying that he was resigning to support what he termed as the “February 17 revolution”.

    He urged the Libyan army to join the people and their “legitimate demands”.

    On Wednesday, Youssef Sawani, a senior aide to Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, one of Muammer Gaddafi’s sons, resigned from his post “to express dismay against violence”, Reuters reported.

    Earlier, Mustapha Abdeljalil, the country’s justice minister, had resigned in protest at the “excessive use of violence” against protesters, and diplomat’s at Libya’s mission to the United Nations called on the Libyan army to help remove “the tyrant Muammar Gaddafi”.

    A group of army officers has also issued a statement urging soldiers to “join the people” and remove Gaddafi from power.

    Protesters ‘take’ towns

    Swathes of the country now appear to be out of Gaddafi’s control. Benghazi, the country’s second largest city, was “taken” by protesters after days of bloody clashes, and soldiers posted there are reported to have deserted and joined the anti-government forces.

    On Wednesday morning, Kharey, a local resident, told Al Jazeera that “normal traffic” was flowing on Benghazi’s streets, but that demonstrations may take place at midday near court buildings.

    He said that people in Benghazi were forming committees to manage the affairs of the city, and that similar committees were being set up in the towns of Beyda and Derna.

    The Libyan government has accused Qatar, Al Jazeera’s host country, of spreading “lies” and fomenting unrest

    Several other cities in the country’s east are said to be under the control of protesters, including Tobruk, where a former army major told the Reuters news agency: “All the eastern regions are out of Gaddafi’s control … the people and the army are hand-in-hand here.”

    The Paris-based International Federation for Human Rights says that protesters also control Sirte, Misrata, Khoms, Tarhounah, Zenten, Al-Zawiya and Zouara.

    The Warfalla tribe, the largest in the country, has also joined calls from other tribes for Gaddafi to stand down.

    Global isolation

    The country is also facing growing international isolation, and late on Tuesday, the United Nations Security Council expressed “grave concern” at the situation in the country, condemning the use of force against civilians.

    A statement signed by all 15 members of the council said that the UNSC “deplored the repression against peaceful demonstrators, and expressed deep regret at the deaths of hundreds of civilians”.

    The council called for “steps to address the legitimate demands of the population”.

    Also on Tuesday, the Arab League barred Libya from attending meetings of the bloc until it stops cracking down on anti-government protesters. The league strongly condemned what it called crimes against civilians, the recruiting of foreign mercenaries and the use of live ammunition, according to a statement read by Amr Moussa, the body’s secretary-general.

    On Wednesday, the African Union conducted a “security meeting” on the situation in Libya.

    Peru, meanwhile, has severed diplomatic ties with Gaddafi’s government, while several countries, including Britain, the United States, Italy, France, Turkey, India, Sri lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh and Greece have put into place arrangements for the evacuation of their citizens from the country.

    Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, said on Tuesday that the use of violence was “completely unacceptable”, while Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, said it “amounted to [Gaddafi] declaring war on his own people”.

    Violence rages

    The UNSC’s statement stopped short of declaring Libyan airspace a no-fly zone, after diplomats called for the step to be taken following reports that warplanes had been used throughout Monday to bomb civilian targets in Tripoli.

    Violence has continued to rage in Libya since an anti-government crackdown on demonstrations began on February 17. Human Rights Watch, a US-based rights watchdog, says that at least 295 people have been killed since violence began.

    Naji Abu-Ghrouss, an interior ministry official, said 197 civilians and 111 in the military have been killed in violence so far.

    Witnesses in Tripoli and other cities have reported that foreign mercenaries have been patrolling the streets, firing indiscriminately on those they encounter in a bid to keep people off the streets. In addition, air strikes have also been reported against civilian targets.

    The government claims that while warplanes have been used in recent days, they were targeting arms depots and that the targets were not in residential areas.

    On Tuesday, Navi Pillay, the UN’s high commissioner for human rights, said that widespread and systematic attacks against civilians “may amount to crimes against humanity”.

    Protesters and tribesmen in Ajdabiya, a key city near the country’s oil fields, say they are protecting facilities and fields.

    On Tuesday, two international oil companies – Italy’s Eni and Spain’s Repsol-YPF – shut down operations, while Royal Dutch Shell said that it was preparing to evacuate employees.

    Al Jazeera and agencies




    Is the West Bank next?

    If Israel refuses to accept a viable peace deal, the revolt sweeping the Arab world will arrive in Palestine.
    MJ Rosenberg Last Modified: 22 Feb 2011 21:41 GMT
    Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu expects the US to protect Israel from a Palestinian rebellion, writer says  [EPA]  

    If Binyamin Netanyahu’s govenment, and its lobby in Washington, were rational they would be rushing to plan Israel’s evacuation from the occupied territories, and encouraging the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. 

    That is because they would understand that the Arab revolution will not stop at the gates of the West Bank, especially when it is the occupation that unites virtually all Arabs and Muslims in common fury.

    As for the Palestinians themselves, they are watching the revolutions with a combination of joy and humiliation.  Other Arabs are freeing themselves from local tyrants while they remain under a foreign occupation that grows more onerous every day -particularly in East Jerusalem. While other Arabs revel in what they have accomplished, the Palestinians remain, and are regarded as, victims.

    It is not going to last. The Palestinians will revolt, just as the other Arabs have, and the occupation will end. 

    But it is up to the Israelis to help decide how it will end (just as it was up to the Mubarak government and Egyptian army to decide whether the regime would go down in blood and flames or accept the inevitable).

    Gaza mistakes

    For Israel, that means accepting the terms of the Arab League Initiative (incorporating United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338) and trade the occupied lands for full peace and normalisation of relations with the entire Arab world. Or it can hang on to an unsustainable status quo.

    They can wait for the eruption, thinking they can contain it and ignoring the fact that the weaponry they can use against any foreign invaders cannot be used against an occupied civilian population. That is especially true in the age of Al Jazeera and of Twitter, Facebook, and the rest.

    Right-wing Israelis and their lobby in Washington invariably respond to this argument by saying that it is impossible to leave the West Bank, pointing to the experience in Gaza. They withdrew only to have their own land beyond the border shelled by militants who seized control as Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) troops left for home.

    That is true and it might indeed happen again if the Israeli occupation is ended as a result of a popular uprising.

    But Gaza is only an applicable precedent if Israel leaves without negotiating the terms of its departure. Israel left Gaza when Palestinians made the price of staying too high. But, rather than negotiating its way out, Israel just left. 

    Colonial mentality

    In an act of colossal and typical arrogance Ariel Sharon, the former prime minister, withdrew unilaterally. Not only did he refuse to negotiate the terms of the withdrawal with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, Sharon refused even to give the Palestinian Authority (PA) advance notice of the day and time of their departure.

    Had they done so, the PA would have been in place to prevent the havoc that ensued. But they weren’t. Sharon, utterly contemptuous of Palestinians, behaved as if Israel was 19th century Belgium and Palestine was the Congo. No consultations with the natives were even contemplated.

    The Israeli government would have to be absolutely out of its mind to allow a repeat of that experience. But that would likely happen if Israel is forced out rather than negotiating its way out.

    Fortunately, both the Israelis and the Palestinians already have worked out detailed plans to ensure mutual security following an Israeli withdrawal. In fact, the Palestinian Authority already utilizes those plans to maintain West Bank security and, with Israeli help, prevents attacks on Israel from territories its control.

    The same modalities would have to be worked out with the Hamas authorities in Gaza. Hamas has repeatedly said that it would accept the terms of any agreement with Israel worked out by the Palestinian Authority and approved by the Palestinian people in a referendum.

    What is Israel waiting for? 

    Can it honestly look at the way the Middle East has evolved in 2011 and believe that the occupation can last forever? Can it have so little respect for Palestinians that it believes them incapable of doing what Egyptians, Libyans, and Tunisians have done?

    Or is it that Netanyahu simply counts on the United States to come to its assistance when the inevitable happens. That would be a big mistake. It is one thing for the United States to get pressured by the Israeli lobby into vetoing a resolution on settlements. It is quite another to think that anything the United States does can preserve the occupation.

    US protection

    In fact, after last week’s votes, it is doubtful that the Palestinian people (other than a few big shots) even care what the United States thinks anymore. 

    No, it is up to Israel to defend Israel. And that means ending the occupation, on terms worked out with the Palestinians, rather than allowing it to end in violence that could cross the border and threaten the survival of Israel itself. 

    Why can’t Israel see that? Have the fanatics in the Israeli government (the settlers and the religious parties) decided that it better to have no Israel at all than an Israel without the West Bank and its settlements? 

    Because that is how Israel is behaving: as if Ariel, Hebron, and Maale Adumim are worth more than Tel Aviv, Haifa, and the Jewish parts of Jerusalem.

    It’s a kind of insanity.

    MJ Rosenberg is a senior foreign policy fellow at Media Matters Action Network. The above article first appeared in Foreign Policy Matters, a part of the Media Matters Action Network. Follow MJ’s work on Facebook or on Twitter.

    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

    Al Jazeera


    Inside Story


    Libya: Ready for civil war?


    As protests spread across the country, Seif al-Islam Gaddafi vowed that the regime would “fight to the last bullet”.

    Inside Story Last Modified: 22 Feb 2011 12:44 GMT
    The uprising in Libya appears to be growing by the day, and represents the biggest challenge to leader Muammar Gaddafi since he took power in 1969.The unrest has spread to the capital Tripoli for the first time since protests began and the second largest city of Benghazi is reportedly out of government control.
    A major tribe in Libya was reported to have turned against Gaddafi, and a number of Libyan diplomats resigned their posts in protest for using force against demonstrators.In the regime’s first comment on the demonstrations, Seif al-Islam Gaddafi, Muammar Gaddafi’s son, appeared on state television on Sunday night offering significant political reforms.He says that his father will remain in power and is fully backed by the army. Seif al-Islam also vowed that the regime would “fight to the last bullet” against “seditious elements”. He put only two choices in front of the people: Either to accept reforms or be ready for civil war.As thousands of protesters call for Gaddafi to step down, what is behind these latest statements? Will the uprising turn into civil war?Inside Story, with presenter Hazem Sika, discusses with guests Dana Moss, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy; Abubaker Deghayes, a Libyan human rights activist; and Hans Koechler, the official UN observer for the Lockerbie trial and the president of the International Progress Organisation.This episode of Inside Story aired from Monday, February 21, 2011.
    Al Jazeera

    Gaddafi daughter denies fleeing


    Aisha, Gaddafi’s daughter, appears on state television, denying the report she tried to flee to Malta.

    Last Modified: 23 Feb 2011 17:45 GMT
    The plane reportedly carrying Gaddafi’s daughter circled overhead Malta before being turned back 

    Aisha, Muammar Gaddafi’s daughter, has appeared on state television, denying a report she tried to flee to Malta.

    “I am steadfastly here,” she said on Wednesday.

    Earlier, there were reports a Libyan plane carrying the daughter of the Libyan leader, was turned back from Malta after it was denied permission to land.

    “The [crew] initially said they had 14 people on board. They were circling overhead saying they were running low on fuel,” Cal Perry, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Malta, said.

    “At that point the ambassador from Libya who was here in Malta was called in to take part in the negotiations on whether or not they were going to allow this plane to land.

    “As he entered the talks it became clear from the pilots that Aisha Gaddhafi, Muammar Gaddhafi’s only daughter, was aboard the plane. The government said it was an unscheduled flight, it doesn’t matter who is on board; they said it cannot land and diverted the plane back to Libya.”

    Maltese government sources said however, that it had no information that she was on a plane which was refused permission to land or that the Libyan ambassador was involved in any negotiations.

    Libya has been in turmoil since mass protests broke out against Gaddafi’s 42-year-old rule in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi more than a week ago. 

    The protests, which have spread to other cities despite the authorities cracking down on the protesters, is the biggest challenge that Gaddafi has faced during his long rule. The protesters now control much of the country and many senior officials have deserted Gaddafi.

    Relatives fleeing?

    Wednesday’s reports of attempted landing on Malta fueled speculation over whether family members of Gaddafi sought to flee.

    The attempted landing came a day after a private Libyan jet carrying the Lebanese wife of one of Gaddafi’s sons was prevented from landing at Beirut airport in Lebanon, the Voice of Lebanon radio reported on Wednesday.

    It said Hannibal Gaddafi’s wife and several members of the Libyan ruling family were aboard the jet that was denied permission to land at Rafik Hariri international airport on Tuesday.

    Several Libyan regime figures could have been among the plane’s passengers, the radio station said.

    Lebanon’s Safir daily said that the plane was due to take off from the Libyan capital before midnight but Lebanese authorities asked Libya to unveil the identity of the 10 people on board before allowing the jet to land.

    When the Libyans ignored the Lebanese request, authorities in Beirut ordered airport officials to ask the pilot to divert the plane to a nearby country, either Syria or Cyprus.

    Al Jazeera and agencies


    Een democratische omwenteling in de Arabische Wereld? Deel 7– 7 ثورة ديمقراطية في العالم العربي؟ جزء

    nieuws en artikelenoverzicht van de actuele gebeurtenissen in de Arabische wereld deel 7 (zie ook deel 1, deel 2, deel 3, deel 4, deel 5 en deel 6)



    Voor de nieuwste ontwikkelingen, bekijk hieronder: 

    Al-Jazeera English live


    Palestinian Authority closes Al-Jazeera office

    klik op bovenstaand logo




    Libya clashes spread to Tripoli


    Clashes between anti-government protesters and Gaddafi supporters escalate as army unit ‘defects’ in Benghazi.

    Last Modified: 20 Feb 2011 22:05 GMT
    Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is confronting the most serious challenge to his rule in 42 years [Al Jazeera]

    Security forces have shot dead scores of protesters in Libya’s second largest city, where residents said a military unit had joined their cause.

    Live Blog

    While Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi attempted to put down protests centred in the eastern city of Benghazi against his four-decade rule, Al Jazeera began receiving eyewitness reports of “disturbances” in the capital Tripoli early on Monday as well.

    There were reports of clashes between anti-government protesters and Gaddafi supporters around the Green Square.

    “We are in Tripoli, there are chants [directed at Gaddafi]: ‘Where are you? Where are you? Come out if you’re a man,” a protester told Al Jazeera on the phone.

    A resident told the Reuters news agency that he could hear gunshots in the streets and crowds of people.

    “We’re inside the house and the lights are out. There are gunshots in the street,” the resident said by phone. “That’s what I hear, gunshots and people. I can’t go outside.”

    An expatriate worker living in the Libyan capital told Reuters: “Some anti-government demonstrators are gathering in the residential complexes. The police are dispersing them. I can also see burning cars.”


    Twitter Reaction

    Libya Protests

    waldpferd profile

    waldpferd RT @RickSanchezTV: UNCONFIRMED: #Libya diplomat claims ‘gunfight btwn #Gaddafi’s sons (one pro-reform) & Gaddafi left #Libya’ / via aljazeera 36 seconds ago · reply

    lemlemz profile

    lemlemz RT @OnlyOneLibya: #Gaddafi’s henchmen and mercenaries are terrorising #Tripoli. We trust in God, they Libyan people will prevail. #Libya 28 seconds ago · reply

    preius profile

    preius ” #Gaddafi just blamed #Canada for chaos. I think that’s the first time someone’s blamed Canada for war outside of South Park.” #libya 20 seconds ago · reply


      8 new tweets

    theimp profile

    theimp RT @EnoughGaddafi: international community must intervene, #gaddafi is a war criminal and a barbarian. #feb17 #libya about 1 minute ago · reply

    There were also reports of protesters heading to Gaddafi’s compound in the city of Al-Zawia near Tripoli, with the intention of burning the building down.

    Meanwhile the head of the Al-Zuwayya tribe in eastern Libya has threatened to cut off oil exports unless authorities stop what he called the “oppression of protesters”, the Warfala tribe, one of Libya’s biggest, has reportedly joined the anti-Gaddafi protests.

    Speaking to Al Jazeera, Shaikh Faraj al Zuway said: “We will stop oil exports to Western countries within 24 hours” if the violence did not stop. The tribe lives south of Benghazi, which has seen the worst of the deadly violence in recent days.

    Akram Al-Warfalli, a leading figure in the Al Warfalla tribe, one of Libya’s biggest, told the network: “We tell the brother (Gaddafi), well he’s no longer a brother, we tell him to leave the country.” The tribe lives south of Tripoli.

    Protests have also reportedly broken out in other cities, including Bayda, Derna, Tobruk and Misrata – and anti-Gaddafi graffiti adorns the walls of several cities.

    Anti-government protesters in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi have reportedly seized army vehicles and weapons amid worsening turmoil in the African nation.

    A local witness said that a section of the troops had joined the protesters on Sunday as chaos swept the streets of the city, worst hit by the uprising against Muammar Gaddafi’s 42-year old rule.

    Mohamed, a doctor from Al Jalaa hospital in Benghazi, confirmed to Al Jazeera that members of the military had sided with the protesters.

    “We are still receiving serious injuries, I can confirm 13 deaths in our hospital. However, the good news is that people are cheering and celebrating outside after receiving news that the army is siding with the people,” he said.

    “But there is still a brigade that is against the demonstrators. For the past three days demonstrators have been shot at by this brigade, called Al-Sibyl brigade.”

    The witness reports came on a day in which local residents told Al Jazeera that at least 200 people had died in days of unrest in Benghazi alone. The New York-based Human Rights Watch on Sunday put the countrywide death toll at 173. The rights group said its figure was “conservative”.


    News of the rising death toll came as residents of Benghazi, Libya’s second largest city, reported renewed gunfire from security forces in the city.

    Sadiq al Ghiryani, a Libyan religious leader, told Al Jazeera a “massacre” was under way in the city and troops firing shots were mostly mercenaries.. Kamal Hudethifi, a judge, described the killings as “ethnic cleansing”.

    The Reuters news agency said at least 50 people had been killed in Benghazi since Sunday afternoon.

    Moftah, a Benghazi resident , who requested Al Jazeera use only his first name, said the city had become a “war zone” in recent days.

    Residents have barricaded the streets with overturned trash cans and debris, and security forces have largely confined themselves to two compounds, though snipers continue to target protesters, he said.

    The forces who remain are “thugs” loyal to Gaddafi, Moftah said, and they are firing high-calibre ammunition at protesters.

    The eyewitness report came a day after security forces opened fire at a funeral in the eastern coastal city on Saturday, killing at least 15 people and injuring scores more.

    A group of six alleged mercenaries – reportedly brought in from Tunisia and other African nations to bolster pro-Gaddafi forces – were captured and arrested by demonstrators in the city of Shahat.

    Appeal for calm

    Against this backdrop of violence, opposition groups said some 50 Libyan Muslim leaders have urged security forces to stop killing civilians.

    “This is an urgent appeal from religious scholars, intellectuals, and clan elders from Tripoli, Bani Walid, Zintan, Jadu, Msalata, Misrata, Zawiah, and other towns and villages of the western area,” the appeal, signed by the group of leaders, stated.

    “We appeal to every Muslim, within the regime or assisting it in any way, to recognise that the killing of innocent human beings is forbidden by our Creator and by His beloved prophet of compassion, peace be upon him … Do not kill your brothers and sisters. Stop the massacre now!”

    Around the world, people have been gathering in solidarity with the protesters at Libyan consulates and at the White House in Washington, DC, the US capital.

    Libya’s government has responded to the international criticism by threatening retaliation against the European Union.  It said on Sunday that it would stop co-operating with efforts to try and stop illegal migrants heading to Europe.

    Communication cut

    Verifying news from Libya has been difficult since the protests began, because of restrictions on journalists entering the country, as well as internet and mobile phone blackouts imposed by the government.

    The Libyan government has blocked Al Jazeera’s TV signal in the country – and residents have also reported that the network’s website is inaccessible from there.

    This affects viewers on Arabsat and Nilesat at 26 degrees east and 7 degrees west, where alternative frequencies have now been set up.

    A spokesman for the network said whoever was causing the interference must be using large outstations to simultaneously interfere with several platforms on the two orbital positions of Arabsat and Nilesat.

    “We have set up alternative frequencies for viewers and are investigating the source of the problem, though cooperation would be needed from governments to precisely determine this,” said the network.

    “We believe that whoever is doing this is operating with sophisticated and large equipment.”

    In addition to TV signal jamming, internet service has been cut, said a US company that monitors web traffic.

    Massachusetts-based Arbor Networks said data collected from 30 internet service providers worldwide showed that online traffic in and out of Libya was disconnected abruptly at  2:15am local time on Saturday. The data also showed two partial service interruptions earlier in the day.

    As of Sunday, it was still possible to reach Libyans by phone, and some in Tripoli had internet access.

    Al Jazeera and agencies


    Highlights of Gaddafi son’s speech


    Al-Islam blamed the unrest in Libya on tribal factions and drunken or drugged Islamists acting on their own agendas.

    Last Modified: 21 Feb 2011 01:39 GMT
    seif islam screen grab 

    Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, a son of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, addressed the people of Libya early on Monday in a televised speech broadcast on state TV.

    In his speech, al-Islam blamed the unrest in Libya on tribal factions and drunken or drugged Islamists acting on their own agendas. He also promised reforms and said the alternative would be civil war causing no trade and no oil money for the country.

    On reported deaths in the unrest, he said: “There were some planning errors. Errors from the police … and the army that was not equipped and prepared to confront angry people and…to defend its premises, weapons and ammunition.”

    “Each party has its own version of the story…But the unfortunate bottom line is that sons of Libya have died. This is the tragedy.”

    On the demands of the protesters: He said he agreed with and understood the “clear political agenda and demands” by political organisations, trade unions and lawyers whom he said were behind the events in the east of Libya.

    “These do not represent a problem. We understand and agree with their opinions.”

    On the people he blamed for the unrest: “They have started by attacking army camps, have killed soldiers, officers…and taken weapons”.

    “The security forces…have arrested dozens in Libya who unfortunately were among our brother Arabs and among the African expatriates…who were used in these events at these times to create problems…Some wealthy (businessmen) and tradesmen spent millions on them to use these people”.

    “There are groups that want to rule, there are groups that want to form the state in eastern Libya and rule…in Benghazi and Baida…

    “There are groups that have formed a government in Benghazi and groups that have set up an Islamic emirate in Baida … and another person who declared himself to be the ruler of the Islamic Republic of Darna”.

    “They now want to transform Libya into a group of (Islamic) emirates, small states and even (cause) separatism. They have a plot. Unfortunately, our brother Arabs (allowed) their media, their stations and the inflammatory coverage.”


    Profile: Libya’s Saif al-Islam


    Saif al-Islam was given the task of defending his father’s government on national television.

    Last Modified: 21 Feb 2011 03:02
    Said al-Islam has played a large role in Libyan politics while never holding an official position within the state [AFP] 

    Described last year by the New York Times as “the Western-friendly face of Libya and symbol of its hopes for reform and openness,” Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, 38, is a fluent English speaker with a PhD from the London School of Economics.

    The second of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s seven sons, Saif al-Islam was given the task of defending his father’s government in a televised address early on Monday after the worst unrest of the elder Gaddafi’s four-decade rule.

    In his address, he accused exiles of fomenting violence and promised a dialogue leading toward reforms.

    Widely seen as belonging to a camp that aims to open Libya’s economy, Saif al-Islam helped lead talks with Western governments that in the past 10 years saw Libya renounce nuclear weapons and end decades of isolation as a foe of the West, paving the way for large-scale investment in its oil sector.

    Saif al-Islam has clashed publicly with the ruling elite over proposals for reforms. Some analysts believe his conservative opponents have the backing of his brothers Mutassim, a national security adviser, and Khamis, a senior military leader. In December, he took the unusual step of denying a family feud with his brothers.

    His turf war with conservatives has escalated in the past few months, with many Libya-watchers seeing signs of his influence being held in check. Twenty journalists working for al Ghad, a media group which had been linked to him, were briefly arrested. The head of the group stepped down and its flagship newspaper stopped printing.

    Much of his influence was wielded through his position as the head of a charity. Late last year the charity said it was withdrawing from politics and his post of chairman was being made into an honorary role.




    Moroccans march to seek change


    Demonstrators demand large-scale political and economic reforms in the North African kingdom.

    Last Modified: 20 Feb 2011 14:18 GMT
    Ordinary Moroccans are demanding large-scale political and economic reforms [AFP] 

    Calls for change sweeping the Arab world have now spread to the kingdom of Morocco, where thousands of people have taken to the streets in the capital to demand a new constitution.

    The demonstrators shouted slogans calling for economic opportunity, educational reform, better health services and help in coping with rising living costs during the march on central Hassan II Avenue in Rabat on Sunday.

    A protest organiser said the turnout at the rally was more than 5,000. But police said fewer than 3,000 people had marched.

    Many in the crowd waved Tunisian and Egyptian flags, in recognition of the uprisings that toppled the two country’s long-standing rulers.

    ‘Down with autocracy’

    Uniformed police kept their distance from the protest, but plain-clothes officers with notebooks mingled with the crowd, amid chants of “The people reject a constitution made for slaves!” and “Down with autocracy!”   

    Some called on Abbas El Fassi, the prime minister, to leave but placards and slogans made no direct attacks on the king.   

    “This is a peaceful protest to push for constitutional reform, restore dignity and end graft and the plundering of public funds,” said Mustapha Muchtati of the Baraka (Enough) group, which helped organise the march.

    The protest was initiated by a group calling itself the February 20 Movement for Change, which has attracted 19,000 followers on the social networking website Facebook

    Demonstrations were also planned in Morocco’s other main cities, including Marrakesh, the top tourist destination.   

    Salaheddine Mezouar, the finance minister, urged citizens to boycott the march, warning that any “slip may in the space of a few weeks cost us what we have achieved over the last 10 years”.   

    Morocco is officially a constitutional monarchy with an elected parliament. But the constitution empowers the king to dissolve the legislature, impose a state of emergency and have a key say in government appointments including the prime minister.




    Tunisia seeks Ben Ali’s extradition


    Officials have formally requested the extradition of former president from Saudi Arabia, where he fled last month.

    Last Modified: 20 Feb 2011 19:40 GMT
    Tunisia now has an interim government which is preparing the country for national elections [AFP] 

    Tunisia is seeking the extradition of former President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali from Saudi Arabia to face charges stemming from the violent crackdown on protesters last month, Tunisia’s foreign ministry has said.

    Tunisia wants to try Ben Ali over his role in the deaths of protesters killed by security forces during the uprising, which brought an end to his decades-long rule, the foreign ministry said in a statement carried by state media on Sunday.

    Ben Ali fled Tunisia to Jeddah on January 14, after weeks of protests ended his 23-year-old rule.

    The interim government, which is preparing the country for national elections, has asked Saudi Arabia to provide “as soon as possible” information on Ben Ali’s health, the state news agency TAP reported.

    The 74-year-old former leader is reportedly very ill in hospital after suffering a stroke. Rumours are rife that the former leader might be dead.





    SEND HELP TO LIBYA!!! Petition, hosted at PetitionOnline.com

     تضامن مع شعب ليبيا

    Live Blog – Libya

    By Al Jazeera Staff in
  • on February 17th, 2011.





    Citizen video reportedly shows protesters marching in the western coastal city of Misrata.

    As protests in Libya enter their eighth day, following a “day of rage” on Thursday, we keep you updated on the developing situation from our headquarters in Doha, Qatar.

    (All times are local in Libya)

    Blog: Feb17 – Feb18 – Feb19

    AJE Live Stream  – Twitter Audio: Voices from Libya  – Benghazi Protest Radio (Arabic) Benghazi Webcam 

    February 21
    2:00 am Picture from the streets shows Libyans watching Seif Gaddafi address the nation via @ammr

    File 9266
    1:50 am Najla Abdurahman, a Libyan dissident, dissected Saif El Islam Gadaffi’s address: 


    He’s threatening Libya and trying to play up on their fears. I don’t think anyone in Libya who isn’t close to the Gaddafi regime would buy anything he said. And even if there is any truth to what he said, I don’t think it’s any better than what the people of Libya have already been living with for the past 40 years. He promised that the country would spiral into civil war for the next 30 to 40 years, that the country’s infrastructure would be ruined, hospitals and schools would no longer be functioning – but schools are already terrible, hospitals are already in bad condition.

    File 9246



    1:00am: Saif El Islam Gaddafi, the Libyan leader’s son, is speaking live on Libyan state television. He says he will address the nation without a written speech, in the Libyan dialect.
    He says the media has greatly exaggerated the events in Libya, and says the number of casualties is 14, adding that he regrets the deaths of civilians. He also says unions and Islamic groups are beind the protests – and they are benefiting from the situation.
    Translated snippets of his speech as he gives it are below:


    “Citizens tried to attack the army and they were in a situation that was difficult. The army was not used to dealing with riots,” he says.

    “Libyan citizens died and this was a tragedy.

    “There is a plot against Libya. People want to create a government in Benghazi and others want to have an Islamic emirate in Bayda. All these [people] have their own plots. Of course Arab media hyped this. The fault of the Libyan media is that it did not cover this.

    Libya is not like Egypt, it is tribes and clans, it is not a society with parties. Everyone knows their duties and this may cause civil wars. 

    Libya is not Tunisia and Egypt. Libya has oil – that has united the whole of Libya.

    “I have to be honest with you. We are all armed, even the thugs and the unemployed. At this moment in time, tanks are driven about with civilians. In Bayda you have machine huns right in the middle of the city. Many arms have been stolen.

    “No one will come to Libya or do any business with Libya.

    “We will call for new media laws, civil rights, lift the stupid punishments, we will have a constitution… We will tomorrow create a new Libya. We can agree on a new national anthem, new flag, new Libya. Or be prepared for civil war. Forget about oil.

    “The country will be divided like North and South Korea, we will see each other through a fence. You will wait in line for months for a visa.

    “The Libyans who live in Europe and USA, their children go to school and they want you to fight. They are comfortable. They then want to come and rule us and Libya. They want us to kill each other then come, like in Iraq.”

    12:47 am: As the protests in Libya appear to be spreading to the capital, Tripoli, Libyans abroad are making their voices heard as well. Twitter users @shihabeldin  and @abuzaakouk posted this video from a solidarity rally in front of the White House in the US capital:



    Concern over rising Libya violence


    Top US diplomats condemn crackdowns on protesters but stopped short short of calling for a change of government.

    Last Modified: 21 Feb 2011 02:54 GMT
    The US, UK and EU all expressed concern at the escalation in violence, but no punitive measures were announced [AFP]

    Western countries have expressed concern at the rising violence against demonstrators in Libya.

    The United States said it was deeply concerned by credible reports of hundreds of deaths and injuries during protests in Libya, and urged the government to allow demonstrators to protest peacefully.

    “The United States is gravely concerned with disturbing reports and images coming out of Libya,” State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said. “We have raised to a number of Libyan officials … our strong objections to the use of lethal force against peaceful demonstrators.”

    The State Department said US embassy dependents were being encouraged to leave Libya and US citizens were urged to defer nonessential travel to the country.

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and US ambassador to the UN Susan Rice spoke out against brutal crackdowns on protesters in Libya and Bahrain but stopped short of calling for a change of government in any of the countries facing large protests.

    British Foreign Secretary William Hague said he spoke to Seif al-Islam Gaddafi by phone on Sunday and told him that the country must embark on “dialogue and implement reforms”.

    Libya threat

    Meanwhile, Libya has told the European Union it will stop cooperating on illegal migration if the EU continues to encourage pro-democracy protests in the country, the bloc’s Hungarian presidency said.

    EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton had said during a visit to the region last week that Libya should listen to what protesters were saying and “allow free expression”.

    EU foreign ministers met in Brussels on Sunday to discuss the uprisings across North Africa and the Gulf with the focus expected to be on Egypt and Libya, where there have been days of protests against President Muammar Gaddafi’s 40-year rule.

    Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said Italy, which has widespread business interests in Libya, particularly in the energy sector, was concerned about developments.

    “We are following very closely all the situation. Italy as you know is the closest neighbour, both of Tunisia and Libya, so we are extremely concerned about the repercussions on the migratory situation in southern Mediterranean,” he said.

    Italian oil giant Eni has invested heavily in the oil-and-gas rich country. Libya’s central bank, meanwhile, has a 4 percent share in Italy’s largest bank UniCredit, which last year won the first international license to operate in the North African country.

    Premier Silvio Berlusconi, who has hosted Gaddafi lavishly on his frequent visits to Rome, said on Saturday he was concerned about the situation but had not called Gaddafi himself because he did not want to “disturb” him.

    Libya has frequently threatened to cancel cooperation with the EU on illegal migration in the past. In December, a minister said Libya would scale back efforts to stem the flow of migrants unless the EU paid 5 billion euros ($6.8 billion) a year.

    The International Organization for Migration estimates that migrants from across Africa account for about 10 per cent of Libya’s six million population, although only a minority of those attempt to travel on to Europe to find work.

    The European Commission said in October it would spend 50 million euros to help Libya tackle illegal migration and protect migrants’ rights.



    Gaddafi cruelly resists, but this Arab democratic revolution is far from over

  • The burning question is, where next? After Ben Ali and Mubarak, others may not fall so easily – but most regimes are candidatesThe world has yet to settle on an agreed term for the great events unfolding across the Middle East. I was in the depths of the French countryside – out of touch, and with a BBC World Service that could only fade in and out of hearing late at night and early morning – during their latest, awe-inspiring Egypt phase. But I was soon persuaded that the designation which, in an article in Le Monde, Gilles Kepel, the noted expert on Islamic fundamentalism, assigned them would prove as accurately encapsulating as any. He dubbed them the “Arab democratic revolution”.

    It is definitely, all-encompassingly Arab. The moment one Arab country, Tunisia, lit the spark, it ignited a fire, a contagion, which all Arabs instantly hoped – and its initially mysterious begetters seem to have envisaged or even planned – would spread to the whole “Arab nation”. They all recognised themselves in the aspirations of the Tunisian people, and most appeared to be seized with the belief that if one Arab people could achieve what all had long craved, so could the others.

    It is self-evidently democratic. To be sure, other factors, above all the socio-economic, greatly fuelled it, but the concentration on this single aspect of it, the virtual absence of other factional or ideological slogans has been striking. Indeed, so striking that, some now say, this emergence of democracy as an ideal and politically mobilising force amounts to nothing less than a “third way” in modern Arab history. The first was nationalism, nourished by the experience of European colonial rule and all its works, from the initial great carve-up of the “Arab nation” to the creation of Israel, and the west’s subsequent, continued will to dominate and shape the region. The second, which only achieved real power in non-Arab Iran, was “political Islam”, nourished by the failure of nationalism.

    And it is doubly revolutionary. First, in the very conduct of the revolution itself, and the sheer novelty and creativity of the educated and widely apolitical youth who, with the internet as their tool, kindled it. Second, and more conventionally, in the depth, scale and suddenness of the transformation in a vast existing order that it seems manifestly bound to wreak.

    Arab, yes – but not in the sense of the Arabs going their own away again. Quite the reverse. No other such geopolitical ensemble has so long boasted such a collection of dinosaurs, such inveterate survivors from an earlier, totalitarian era; no other has so completely missed out on the waves of “people’s power” that swept away the Soviet empire and despotisms in Latin America, Asia and Africa. In rallying at last to this now universal, but essentially western value called democracy, they are in effect rejoining the world, catching up with history that has left them behind.

    If it was in Tunis that the celebrated “Arab street” first moved, the country in which – apart from their own – Arabs everywhere immediately hoped that it would move next was Egypt. That would amount to a virtual guarantee that it would eventually come to them all. For, most pivotal, populous and prestigious of Arab states, Egypt was always a model, sometimes a great agent of change, for the whole region. It was during the nationalist era, after President Nasser’s overthrow of the monarchy in 1952, that it most spectacularly played that role. But in a quieter, longer-term fashion, it was also the chief progenitor, through the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood, of the “political Islam” we know today, including – in both the theoretical basis as well as substantially in personnel – the global jihad and al-Qaida that were to become its ultimate, deviant and fanatical descendants.

    But third, and most topically, it was also the earliest and most influential exemplar of the thing which, nearly 60 years on, the Arab democratic revolution is all about. Nasser did seek the “genuine democracy” that he held to be best fitted for the goals of his revolution. But, for all its democratic trappings, it was really a military-led, though populist, autocracy from the very outset; down the years it underwent vast changes of ideology, policy and reputation, but, forever retaining its basic structures, it steadily degenerated into that aggravated, arthritic,deeply oppressive and immensely corrupt version of its original self over which Hosni Mubarak presided. With local variations, the system replicated itself in most Arab autocracies, especially the one-time revolutionary ones like his, but in the older, traditional monarchies too.

    And, sure enough, Egypt’s “street” did swiftly move, and in nothing like the wild and violent manner that the image of the street in action has always tends to conjure up in anxious minds. As a broad and manifestly authentic expression of the people’s will, it accomplished the first, crucial stage of what surely ranks as one of the most exemplary, civilised uprisings in history. The Egyptians feel themselves reborn, the Arab world once more holds Egypt, “mother of the world”, in the highest esteem. And finally – after much artful equivocation as they waited to see whether the pharaoh, for 30 years the very cornerstone of their Middle East, had actually fallen – President Obama and others bestowed on them the unstinting official tributes of the west.

    These plaudits raise the great question: if the Arabs are now rejoining the world what does it mean for the world? Will the adoption of a fundamental western value make it necessarily receptive to western policies or prescriptions? Probably not. Democracy itself, let alone Arab resentment over the west’s long record of upholding the old, despotic order, will militate against that.

    Practically speaking, the Arabs’ “third way” only means that democracy, a political neutral concept in itself, will henceforth serve as their gateway for the conduct of their politics. It doesn’t mean supplanting the first two ways. For the politics of those cannot but persist into the third. Islamism, the west’s great bugbear, will still be there. A democratic order will find it impossible, on its own or any else’s behalf, to do what Nasser once did in the despotic one, execute some Muslim Brotherhood leaders and harshly suppress their followers. It is bound to accommodate them, openly and electorally ceding to them their true weight in Arab affairs, along with that of all other movements in competition with them.

    Nationalism, once the other great western bugbear, will be one of these, and very probably, given the Brotherhood’s less than glorious role in the uprising, it will regain some of the ground it seriously began losing to the Islamists after the shattering Arab defeat of 1967.

    A key, perhaps the key, element in America’s now sorely stricken Middle East strategies has always been about the Arab-Israeli conflict. With Islamism and nationalism, not to mention other political forces, freely expressing themselves, an Egyptian democracy will not, cannot, continue to play the role – utterly subservient, if not frankly treasonable, in many Arab eyes – that Mubarak did on behalf of the US and Israel. How significant this particular Egyptian-American divergence becomes remains to be seen. But most Israelis already see it as a calamity in the making, with the ironic consequence that the self-styled “only democracy in the Middle East” now leads the field in proclaiming that democracy should never have been for the Arabs.

    But all this is looking ahead. For the time being, the burning questions will be about where the Arab democratic revolution strikes next. Though Europe 1989 is the obvious precedent, the kings and presidents may not fall like dominoes as the Honeckers and Ceausescus did. And, in the wake of Ben Ali and Mubarak, others may not fall so easily or prettily either. That is already apparent from the two latest, and most dramatic, episodes in the almost unceasing pro-democracy turbulence that already grips a good half-dozen Arab countries. The 200-year old Bahraini monarchy may have currently retreated into an attempt at dialogue and reconciliation, but this tight-knit, Sunni-minority regime has already shown how tenacious and tough – and bloody – it can be in the face of its Shia-majority uprising. As for Libya, there could hardly ever have been much doubt that, confronted with his uprising, Colonel Gaddafi, cruellest and most capricious of Arab dictators, would seek to do, in the grand manner, what he has always openly proclaimed he would do to any opponent of his 42-year-old Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab State of the Masses: which is to “cut them to pieces”.

    But most regimes are candidates. Among the few likely exceptions, perhaps the most important, and certainly the most apt, is Lebanon, to which I have now returned. Ever turbulent, ever the most of exposed of Arabs to the consequences of what other Arabs do, it might logically seem destined to be among the first to go. But it isn’t – mainly because, alone in the region, it has always been a democracy of sorts.

    Uit het archief van de VPRO- De Libische Revolutie (1969)



    Een, zeker vanuit het heden beschouwd, zowel onthullende, maar ook ontluisterende documentaire van Roelof Kiers uit 1969 over de staatsgreep van Gadaffi en de zijnen. Toen nog met enige bewondering en sympathie voor de groep jonge officieren, die een einde maakte aan het semi-koloniale bewind van Koning Idris. Verbijsterend om het, met de wetenschap van nu, terug te zien. Maar achteraf praten is altijd makkelijk


    Inside Story


    Crushing Libya’s revolt


    The unrest in Libya started as a series of protests, but was met by a fierce security crackdown.

    Inside Story Last Modified: 21 Feb 2011 12:59
     Across Libya, protesters are still calling for Muammar Gaddafi to leave.More than 200 anti-government protesters were killed during the last few days of violence in the Libyan city of Benghazi.Witnesses from Benghazi say that dozens of people were killed on Saturday when troops opened fire on anti-government protesters in the city.They also spoke of snipers firing at protesters from rooftops and a number of foreign mercenaries from sub-Saharan Africa being brought in to attack protesters.Some of those mercenaries were caught by protesters and confessed that they had received instructions to fire live bullets at demonstrators.Will Muammar Gaddafi’s regime prevail where others fell to the will of the people?Joining us to discuss these issues are: Aly Khan Satchu, a financial analyst and the CEO of Rich Investment; Ian Black, a Middle East editor of The Guardian; and Ashur Shamis, a Libyan opposition activist.This episode of Inside Story aired from Sunday, February 20, 2011.
    Al Jazeera


    Libya protests spread and intensify


    More than 60 people reported dead in the capital, as anti-government demonstrations escalate across the country.

    Last Modified: 21 Feb 2011 16:15 GMT
    More than 60 people have been reported dead after more violence in the Libyan capital as angry protests against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s 40-year rule escalate across the country.At least 61 people were killed in clashes in Tripoli on Monday, witnesses told Al Jazeera. The protests appeared to be gathering momentum, with demonstrators saying they had taken control of several key towns in the country.News of the spreading violence came as a privately run Libyan newspaper reported that the country’s justice minister had resigned over the deadly force used against protesters.Ahmad Jibreel, a Libyan diplomat, spoke to Al Jazeera on Monday and confirmed that the minister had sided with the protesters.

    Live Blog

    “I was speaking to the minister of justice just a few minutes ago… he told me personally, he told me he had joined the supporters. He is trying to organise good things in all cities,” he said.

    Jibreel also told Al Jazeera that key cities near Libya’s border with Egypt were now in the hands of protesters, which he said would enable foreign media to now enter the country.

    “Gaddafi’s guards started shooting people in the second day and they shot two people only. We had on that day in Al Bayda city only 300 protesters. When they killed two people, we had more than 5,000 at their funeral, and when they killed 15 people the next day, we had more than 50,000 the following day.

    “This means that the more Gaddafi kills people, the more people go into the streets.”

    Civil war warning

    His comments came hours after Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, a son of the Libyan leader, warned of a civil war if anti-government protests continue to spread in the country.

    Speaking on state television in the early hours of Monday morning, Saif Gaddafi blamed thugs, inmates, foreigners and Islamists for the unrest that has spread across the country since February 14.

    He promised a conference on constitutional reforms within two days and said Libyans should “forget oil and petrol” and prepare themselves for occupation by “the West” if they failed to agree.

    The younger Gaddafi contrasted the situation in Libya with revolts earlier this year in Egypt and Tunisia, where longtime rulers were forced step down or fled in the face of mass popular discontent.

    Protesters in Libya have similarly called for Muammar Gaddafi’s ousting, but his son warned against this, saying “Libya is different, if there is disturbance it will split into several states”.

    “You can say we want democracy and rights, we can talk about it, we should have talked about it before. It’s this or war. Instead of crying over 200 deaths, we will cry over hundreds of thousands of deaths.

    “Brothers, there are $200bn worth of projects at stake now. We will agree to all these issues immediately. We will then be able to keep our country, unlike our neighbours.

    “Or else, be ready to start a civil war and chaos and forget oil and petrol.”

    But his statements have failed to hinder demonstrations. Protesters say they have taken control of several key towns, including the eastern city of Benghazi. Al Bayda and Sabha were also said to have been taken over by protesters.

    Tripoli violence

    Following Saif Gaddafi’s speech, witnesses in Tripoli reported an escalation of violence, as supporters of his father flooded into the city’s central square and confronted anti-government protesters.


    Twitter Reaction

    Libya Protests

    Yamatatsu0812 profile

    Yamatatsu0812 RT @AJELive: Reuters: UK foreign minister William Hague says he’s seen intel that #Gaddafi on his way to Venezuela. keep up: http://aje.me/g34XgM #Libya 12 seconds ago · reply


      25 new tweets

    busybrains profile

    busybrains RT @AJELive: Reuters: UK foreign minister William Hague says he’s seen intel that #Gaddafi on his way to Venezuela. keep up: http://aje.me/g34XgM #Libya 42 seconds ago · reply

    cowrin profile

    cowrin RT @AJELive: Reuters: UK foreign minister William Hague says he’s seen intel that #Gaddafi on his way to Venezuela. keep up: http://aje.me/g34XgM #Libya 35 seconds ago · reply

    Jnoubiyeh profile

    Jnoubiyeh The death toll keeps rising in #Libya. At least 500 Libyans are estimated to have been murdered by #Gaddafi since the uprising began. #Feb17 yesterday · reply 500+ recent retweets

    Armed men in uniform fired into the crowds, witnesses said, and continuous gunfire could be heard in the background of recorded phone calls from the capital released to journalists by Libyans living abroad.

    Saif Gaddafi admitted that some military bases, tanks and weapons had been seized and acknowledged that the army, under stress, opened fire on crowds because it was not used to controlling demonstrations.

    Though human rights groups have said that hundreds of protesters have died, a toll they still described as “conservative,” Saif Gaddafi said that numbers had been exaggerated.

    He said there were 14 dead in Tripoli and 84 in Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city and the site of some of the bloodiest security crackdowns.

    In a new estimate released on Sunday, Human Rights Watch said at least 233 people have died so far.

    Doctors and eyewitnesses throughout Libya have offered widely varying death toll but have reported many hundreds of injured, even in Benghazi alone.

    ‘Desperate speech’

    Marwan Bishara, Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst, said Saif Gaddafi’s speech appeared “desperate”.

    “It sounded like a desperate speech by a desperate son of a dictator who’s trying to use blackmail on the Libyan people by threatening that he could turn the country into a bloodbath,” Bishara said.

    “That is very dangerous coming from someone who doesn’t even hold an official role in Libya – so in so many ways, this could be the beginning of a nightmare scenario for Libya if a despotic leader puts his son on air in order to warn his people of a bloodbath if they don’t listen to the orders or the dictates of a dictators.”

    “It’s also fascinating how he threatened the West with chaos in Libya and then threatened Libyans with Western intervention, because, as he put it, that would turn Libya into a decentralised country allowing various Islamist groups to take over, which the West would not allow,” Bishara said.

    Awad Elfeituri from the Libyan Information Centre in Qatar told Al Jazeera that the young Gaddafi “is in a state of panic now. I think he is trying to send a message to the west, I don’t think he was talking to the Libyan people”.

    Elfeituri said the Gaddafi regime was still trying to do its best to hold onto power. “I don’t think they will surrender easily,” he said.

    Al Jazeera and agencies


    Report: Libyan protesters fired on


    Security forces using fighter jets launch operations against anti-Gaddafi march in Tripoli.

    Yasmine Ryan Last Modified: 21 Feb 2011 16:36 GMT
    Reports say live ammuntion is being used against protesters marching on the compound of Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader.The Libyan News Centre (LNC) based in Geneva, Switzerland, announced on Monday afternoon that Libyan security forces were killing protesters in Tripoli.Ahmed Elgazir, a human rights researcher, said the LNC received a call for help from a woman “witnessing the massacre in progress who called on a satellite phone”.Phone lines in the country have been blocked, making it impossible to verify the information.
    Al Jazeera




    Israeli media ‘fears’ the new Egypt

    Israel’s media presents Egyptian democracy as a threat, with one commentator lamenting the end of colonialism.
    Neve Gordon Last Modified: 21 Feb 2011 16:04 GMT
    Israeli media changed its tone, first arguing that Hosni Mubarak’s government would not fall, and later worrying about the implications for Israel [GALLO/GETTY] 

    Over the past three weeks the Israeli media has been extremely interested in Egypt.

    During the climatic days of the unprecedented demonstrations, television news programmes spent most of their airtime covering the protests, while the daily papers dedicated half the news and opinion pages to the unfolding events.

    Rather than excitement at watching history in the making, however, the dominant attitude here, particularly on television, was of anxiety– a sense that the developments in Egypt were inimical to Israel’s interests. Egypt’s revolution, in other words, was bad news.

    It took a while for Israel’s experts on “Arab Affairs” to get a grip on what was happening. During the early days of unrest, the recurrent refrain was that “Egypt is not Tunis”.

    Commentators assured the public that the security apparatuses in Egypt are loyal to the regime and that consequently there was little if any chance that President Hosni Mubarak’s government would fall.

    Media switch

    Once it became clear that this line of analysis was erroneous, most commentators followed Prime Minister Binyamin  Netanyahu’s lead and criticised President Barack Obama’s Administration for not supporting Mubarak. The Foreign News editor of one channel noted that: “The fact that the White House is permitting the protests is reason for worry;” while the prominent political analyst Ben Kaspit expressed his longing for President George W. Bush.

    “We remember 2003 when George Bush invaded and took over Iraq with a sense of yearning”, Ben Kaspit wrote. “Libya immediately changed course and allied itself with the West. Iran suspended its military nuclear program. Arafat was harnessed. Syria shook with fear. Not that the invasion of Iraq was a wise move (not at all, Iran is the real problem, not Iraq), but in the Middle East whoever does not walk around with a big bat in his hand receives the bat on his head.”

    Israeli commentators are equivocal on the issue of Egyptian democracy.  One columnist explained that it takes years for democratic institutions to be established and for people to internalise the practices appropriate for democracy, while Amir Hazroni from NRG went so far as to write an ode to colonialism:

    “When we try to think how and why the United States and the West lost Egypt, Tunis, Yemen and perhaps other countries in the Middle East, people forget that. The original sin began right after WWII, when a wonderful form of government that protected security and peace in the Middle East (and in other parts of the Third Word) departed from this world following pressure from the United States and Soviet Union… More than sixty years have passed since the Arab states and the countries of Africa were liberated from the ‘colonial yoke,’ but there still isn’t an Arab university, an African scientist or a Middle Eastern consumer product that has made a mark on our world.”

    Fear and the brotherhood

    While only a few commentators are as reactionary as Hazroni, an Orientalist perspective permeated most of the discussion about Egypt, thus helping to bolster the already existing Jewish citizenry’s fear of Islam. Political Islam is constantly presented and conceived as an ominous force that is antithetical to democracy.

    Thus, in the eyes of Israeli analysts, the protestors- that Facebook and Twitter generation- are deserving of empathy but also extremely naïve. There is a shared sense that their fate will end up being identical to that of the Iranian intellectuals who led the protests against the Shah.

    Channel Two’s expert on “Arab Affairs” explained that: “The fact that you do not see the Muslim Brotherhood does not mean they are not there,” and another expert warned his viewers not to “be misled by ElBaradei’s Viennese spirit, behind him is the Muslim Brotherhood.”

    According to these pundits, the Muslim Brotherhood made a tactical decision not to distribute Islamists banners or to take an active part in leading the protests. One commentator declared that if the Muslim Brotherhood wins, then “elections are the end of the [democratic] process, not its beginning,” while an anchorman for Channel Ten asked former Minister Binyamin Ben Eliezer whether “the person who says to himself: ‘How wonderful, at last the state of Egypt is a democracy,’ is naïve?”

    The Minister responded: “Allow me even to laugh. We wanted a democracy in Iran and in Gaza. The person who talks like this is ignoring the fact that for over a decade there has been a struggle of giants between the Sunni and Shia with tons of blood spilled. The person who talks about democracy does not live in the reality we live in.”

    Democratic threat

    Ben-Eliezer’s response is telling, not least because it is well known that Israel supported the Shah regime in Iran and has not proven itself to be a particularly staunch supporter of Palestinian democracy. Democracy in the Middle East is, after all, conceived by this and prior Israeli governments as a threat to Israel’s interests.

    Dan Margalit, a well-known commentator, made this point clear when he explained that Israel does not disapprove of a democracy in the largest Arab country but simply privileges Israel’s peace agreement with Egypt over internal Arab affairs.

    Israel, one should note, is not alone in this self-serving approach; most western countries constantly lament the absence of democracy in the Arab world, while supporting the dictators and helping them remain in office. In English this kind of approach has a very clear name – it is called hypocrisy.

    Neve Gordon is the author of Israel’s Occupation and can be reached through his website.

    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

    Al Jazeera

    Dit geluid was al een tijdje herkenbaar bij de diverse pro-Israël bloggers/propagandisten/ Hasbaristen, zoals bijvoorbeeld bij de op dit blog eerder besproken Ratna Pelle (zie  https://fhs1973.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/een-repliek-aan-ratna-pelle-beroepspropagandiste-hysterische-zioniste-en-palestijnenbasher/). Op haar blog staan bijvoorbeeld de volgende jammerklachten te lezen:

    ‘Het is een cliché te stellen dat niemand een maand geleden had kunnen vermoeden dat de Arabische wereld op zijn kop zou staan, en dat massale protesten zouden leiden tot op zijn minst flinke hervormingen, en waarschijnlijk regime change in verschillende Arabische staten. De geschiedenis blijkt keer op keer onvoorspelbaar en grillig. En ook nu hebben we geen idee hoe het er over een maand voorstaat, of de rust is weergekeerd of dat als dominostenen de ene na de andere dictator zal vallen. In zo’n geval vragen de media experts om hun mening, die dan met een ernstig gezicht komen vertellen hoe het zit en dat we ons geen zorgen hoeven maken. In Nieuwsuur legt Bertus Hendriks dagelijks uit dat we niet bang hoeven zijn voor de Moslim Broederschap (MB), want die zijn niet gewelddadig en bovendien heeft de gematigde tak nu de overhand. Ook Frans Timmermans mag regelmatig aanschuiven om te verkondigen dat als het Westen zich eenduidig achter de protesten schaart, het nieuwe regime ons heus goed gezind zal zijn, en Europa wat dit betreft het voorbeeld moet geven. Overigens heeft Amerika Mubarak al laten vallen, en volgens sommigen heeft dat eraan bijgedragen dat hij hoogstwaarschijnlijk binnenkort zal aftreden. Op internet kom ik echter heel andere informatie tegen over de MB, zoals dat zij de jihad tegen zowel Israel als het Westen wel degelijk steunt’ (http://www.zionism-israel.com/blog/archives/00000533.html)


    ‘Avond aan avond laten deskundologen hun speculaties, hoop, bezorgdheid en verwachtingen wat betreft de situatie in Egypte op ons los. Er is een algemeen gevoel dat we getuigen zijn van historische gebeurtenissen. Optimisten maken graag een vergelijking met Oost Europa, pessimisten met Iran. We zijn een pluriform land, met vrijheid van meningsuiting, een vrije pers, een leger aan journalisten en analisten en deskundigen en politici van allerlei gezindten en achtergronden. Tenminste dat dacht ik. Maar als je op Nieuwsuur en Pauw en Witteman afgaat, bekruipt je weleens het gevoel dat wij hier ook een soort staats-tv hebben, waar bepaalde meningen steeds maar weer worden verkondigd en andere nooit te horen zijn.

    Voor die andere meningen moet je op duistere blogs en zionistische websites zijn (je neemt me de woorden uit de mond, FS 🙂 ), of er de Israelische kranten op naslaan, ik bedoel, opgoogelen. Daar lees je dan bijvoorbeeld dat de Moslim Broederschap het vredesverdrag met Israel wil opzeggen en democratie slechts als een middel ziet om de macht te grijpen. Daar lees je hoe voor- en tegenstanders van Mubarak Israel de schuld geven van de problemen in hun land, en dat ook de Palestijnse premier, de als zeer gematigd bekendstaande Salam Fayyad, Israel de schuld geeft voor de problemen in Egypte. Daar lees je dat Israel decennialang als zondebok en uitlaatklep voor de onvrede in Egypte (en andere Arabische staten) fungeerde, dat Mubarak dat bewust aanwakkerde en je voor kontakten met Israel in de gevangenis kon belanden. En daar lees je dat Hamas aanhangers nu relatief makkelijk de grens met de Gazastrook oversteken.

    Een frappant bericht in de Jerusalem Post meldde dat er nu goederen de Gazastrook UIT worden gesmokkeld om de bevolking in Egypte te voeden. Door de onrust worden de winkels in de Sinaï niet fatsoenlijk meer bevoorraad, en blijkbaar is er na anderhalve week van protesten meer voedsel in ‘concentratiekamp Gaza‘ dan in de Sinaï. Dat lijkt mij toch opzienbarend nieuws, nadat hulporganisaties, journalisten en mensenrechtenactivisten jarenlang de noodklok luidden over de humanitaire ramp in Gaza die door het westen geheel genegeerd zou worden.

    Verschillende deskundologen noemden de Moslim Broederschap van de week een soort CDA, CU of SGP, kortom een democratische religieuze partij waar we verder niks van te vrezen hebben. Dat doet niet alleen onrecht aan de huidige standpunten en de geschiedenis van de MB, maar ook aan de verschillen tussen het Midden-Oosten en Nederland. Het is een fout die veel wordt gemaakt. Het is gelukkig uit de tijd om over wilde, primitieve of exotische Arabieren te spreken, maar feit is dat het een heel andere regio is met een andere culturele en religieuze traditie, een andere mentaliteit en een geheel andere manier van politiek bedrijven. Paul Brill maakte dat heel mooi duidelijk in dit vermakelijke stukje.(http://www.zionism-israel.com/blog/archives/00000534.html)

    enz. enz. enz…… 🙂 Terug naar Libië


    What next for the ‘Mad Dog’ of Libya?

    By Jamal Elshayyal in
  • on February 21st, 2011.





    Photo by AFP

    2011 has already proven lie to the idea that the Arab world ever needed foreign help in order to achieve democracy; and now it could prove false the notion that the American administration and other Western governments ever cared about human rights or self determination. Unfortunately, this will be done through the massacring of hundreds if not thousands of innocent Libyans.

    It has already become apparent that fear and apathy no longer cripple the Arab world, the volcano that is the Middle East of today is no longer dormant, and as it begins to erupt, those who foolishly continue to try and suppress it eventually burn or melt away. 

    For decades, the Arab world has settled for corrupt, ignorant, treacherous despots as their leaders. For a generation, and in some cases two, Arabs lived in constant fear of expressing dissent, a fear so crippling it deemed them useless, incompetent and ultimately irrelevant . But the region has now been revived by its youth who have shown in Tunisia, Egypt and now Libya that they know no fear, that they would rather die standing than live on their knees. 

    But still, like with Egypt, the West fails to see the inevitability of freedom, America and Britain fail to understand that they can not continue to do business with dictators and still say they are “friends of the people”.

    The European Union buys 79 per cent of Libya’s oil. American companies and expats have practically taken over parts of Libya in recent years as the “free world” began to flirt with Gaddafi in the most scandalous of relationships. How can Europe put pressure on the Libyan government (freezing personal assets of Gaddafi for example) to immediately stop the butchering of innocent civilians when 10 per cent of Europe’s oil originates in Libya?

    America and most of Western Europe have already taught us how the equation works: Oil – Arab blood = Positive, Arab Blood – Oil = Negative. 

    In the past few days I have spoken to people in Benghazi, in Beyda, in Tripoli and I’ve heard accounts of 60 innocent young men being gunned down in a police station. People I’ve spoken to on the phone have since gone missing, picked up by Libyan intelligence, their fate – only God knows. 

    Gaddafi’s son, Saif, has threatened to kill hundreds of thousands of Libyans – on TV. What was the reaction from “the free world”?

    Despite the horrific barbarism used by Gaddafi to try and suppress his people, Libyans remain steadfast, determined to realise their dream of living in a democratic and free country. But they do this in spite of “the free world”, they do this despite the best efforts of Washington, London and Rome, all of whom have and continue to prop up Gaddafi.

    It amazes me why these governments fail to realise that we no longer live in a world where oppression is okay. I am baffled as to how those working in the State Department have yet to comprehend that the Middle East is no longer their playground, the Arab people will no longer be subjected to the dictatorial rule of puppet despots propped up by greedy, racist and corrupt regimes. 

    2011 is proving to be a turning point, a new beginning for the free people of this region, from what I hear, see and know about the Arab people, they want nothing more than to embark on this new beginning with their fellow free humans in the West; its a shame that Western governments seem to be as opposed to freedom and democracy as the despots who have ruled the Arab world for decades. 


    Gaddafi hits with deadly force


    Libya’s official news agency blames Israel for unrest, as security forces attack protesters.

    Emad Mekay Last Modified: 21 Feb 2011 14:33
    Protests against the Libyan leader have been taking place in London and around the world [GALLO/GETTY] 

    Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has unleashed a bloody crackdown against pro-democracy protestors seeking his ouster, killing dozens of people in only four days of protests.

    On Sunday, the unrest spread to capital Tripoli from the eastern port city Benghazi.

    Libyan Internet activists have denounced the international community’s failure to act over the “massacres” in Libya.

    The Cairo-based Arab Organisation for Human Rights has decried the use of violence against the protestors in Libya and called for an international investigation. The Vienna-based Friends of Humanity said the Libyan regime’s onslaught was tantamount to “war crimes”.

    There are conflicting reports on the death toll but it is generally believed to be in the hundreds now.

    Human Rights Watch reports that 173 people had died prior to Monday. The London-based private newspaper Libya Al-Youm quoted a local doctor as saying that 285 people died in the eastern city of Benghazi alone.

    Some 300 people have been killed in Benghazi, the country’s second largest city, witnesses told Al Jazeera by phone.

    The crackdown by Gaddafi, who has ruled Libya since 1969, threatens to make the revolt the most costly in terms of human lives and bloodshed in the wave of demonstrations sweeping across the region for greater freedoms.

    Gaddafi, trying to stave off the fate of the presidents of Tunisia and Egypt who were removed from power after facing similar protests, has resorted to much harsher military tactics than those used in uprisings in neighbouring Egypt or Tunisia.

    His tactics include cutting off food, fuel and medical supplies as well as electricity to revolting cities. The regime also cut off most communications to try to make sure the unrest does not spread to other cities. But the move failed to prevent protests erupting in capital Tripoli on Sunday.

    Pan-Arab news outlets report that Gaddafi’s troops have used live ammunition and heavy military equipment such as anti-tank missiles in Benghazi. Late on Sunday fierce clashes were being reported in Tripoli.

    Libya Al Youm reported on its website on Sunday that the regime was using “heavy weapons” and shooting at random.

    The newspaper also carried a call for urgent supplies for Benghazi hospitals including blood.

    “Muammar Gaddafi’s security forces are firing on Libyan citizens and killing scores simply because they’re demanding change and accountability,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch.

    On top of its military response, the Gaddafi regime is trying to paint the revolt as a foreign plot to destabilise the country – a tool used by many other Arab regimes. After a long history of colonisation by Western powers and by Israel in the Palestinian territories, Arab people are deeply mistrustful of foreign interference.

    The official Libyan News Agency (JANA) reported Sunday that the government was fighting an Israeli-inspired scheme to create anarchy in the country. It said that there were no genuine popular grievances behind the protests.

    Israel is financing “separation” forces in the Arab region, JANA added.

    Al-Shams newspaper, which is controlled by an arm of the information ministry in Tripoli, reported online that the government has exposed “foreign network elements” in several Libyan cities.

    But online posts by Libyans and anti-Gaddafi demonstrators show that the protestors want regime change and democracy.

    Most of the uprising has so far centred around Eastern cities, especially the Mediterranean city of Benghazi. Protests were also reported in Baida, Ajdabiya, Zawiya and Derna before spreading to Tripoli.

    The protests started Feb. 17 after Internet activists called for a “Day of Rage” against political and economic conditions for Libyans under Gaddafi.

    On Sunday, the website, LibyaFeb17.com carried tweets and posts condemning the global indifference over the harsh tactics by Gaddafi’s troops.

    “It is precisely this silence that is a very serious issue in this terrifying situation,” said one post.

    The post came after Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said Saturday he will not “bother” Gaddafi over the violent incidents.

    In 2009, the Libyan government invested in Eni, an Italian oil company that has been operating in Libya since 1959. Eni is Libya’s largest foreign oil producer.

    Britain had said on Friday it was revoking arms export licences for Libya and Bahrain, another Arab country whose government is fighting popular protests. The ban will limit tear gas and ammunition sales that could be used to suppress protests.

    Gaddafi had tried earlier to appear unruffled over the removal of two of his erstwhile allies, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia.

    The state-sponsored Al-Jamahiriya TV, beamed via satellite to Arab countries, aired live interviews with officials and pundits calling for calm and “opening a dialogue.”

    The officials explained that the government was spending “hundreds of millions” of dollars on making Libyans’ life better through investing in infrastructure, roads, schools and universities.

    Libya’s Al-Jamahiriya 2 was airing songs praising Gaddafi and eulogising his achievements. But the violent reaction is seen as an indication of the threat Gaddafi perceives.

    A version of this article first appeared on the Inter Press Service News Agency.



    ‘Bloedbad in Tripoli’

    Dassault Mirage F1 van de Libische luchtmacht op het luchthaven van Malta» Dassault Mirage F1 van de Libische luchtmacht op het luchthaven van Malta AFP

    Toegevoegd: maandag 21 feb 2011, 18:15

    Update: maandag 21 feb 2011, 23:10

    De volksopstand in Libië is ook vandaag uitgelopen op een bloedbad. Op veel plaatsen zijn betogers gedood door het leger in een nieuwe poging de opstand de kop in te drukken.

    Straaljagers, helikopters en tanks openden het vuur overal waar demonstranten waren, zeggen ooggetuigen. Alleen al in de hoofdstad Tripoli zouden volgens de zender al-Arabiya 160 mensen zijn omgekomen. “Dit is onvoorstelbaar. Oorlogsvliegtuigen bombarderen het ene gebied na het andere. Er zijn veel, heel veel doden”, zegt de politieke activist Adel Mohamed Saleh. “Ons volk gaat dood, het is de tactiek van de verschroeide aarde.”

    Volgens hem was een begrafenisstoet in Tripoli het eerste doelwit van de beschietingen. Nu werd er overal gebombardeerd. “Het gaat maar door, het gaat maar door. Iedereen die beweegt, is een doelwit.”

    Eerder kwamen er al berichten dat vliegtuigen met scherp schoten op betogers die zich op het plein voor het paleis van de Libische leider hadden verzameld. Ook zijn er tanks ingezet. Volgens Saleh richten de militairen zich op alles wat beweegt. “Wie met zijn auto de straat op gaat, wordt geraakt.”

    Said Kadhafi, de zoon van de Libische leider, ontkent dat de luchtmacht bombardementen heeft uitgevoerd op demonstranten in Tripoli. Hij beweert dat het leger de eigen munitiedepots heeft gebombardeerd in afgelegen gebieden en niet in wijken in Tripoli en Benghazi.


    Twee Libische luchtmachtpiloten zijn vanmiddag uit protest tegen het harde optreden van Kadhafi met twee straaljagers uitgeweken naar Malta.

    De twee kolonels vertelden de Maltese autoriteten dat zij de opdracht hadden gekregen om betogers in Benghazi te bombarderen. Toen andere piloten daarmee begonnen, veranderden ze van koers en vlogen met hun Mirages naar Malta.

    De twee zouden op Malta asiel willen aanvragen.

    Militairen doodgeschoten

    Ook in andere Libische steden is het nog steeds onrustig. Er zijn overheidsgebouwen in brand gestoken. Ook zijn er meldingen dat gebouwen van de staatsmedia zijn geplunderd. Volgens een Libische krant hebben de protesten zich uitgebreid naar de kuststad Ras Lanuf. Ooggetuigen zeggen dat in Benghazi een aantal militairen door officieren is doodgeschoten toen die weigerden op demonstranten te schieten.

    Verschillende bronnen melden dat de betogers de macht in Benghazi en Sert inmiddels hebben overgenomen. Ze zouden overheidsgebouwen hebben bezet.

    Omdat Libië geen journalisten toestaat, is het onmogelijk de berichten te verifiëren.

    De Libische staatstelevisie meldde vandaag dat veiligheidsdiensten “de schuilplaatsen bestormen van terroristen die Libië haten”.


    De Britse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken William Hague zegt dat hij aanwijzingen heeft dat de Libische leider Kadhafi mogelijk op weg is naar Venezuela. Het is niet duidelijk waar minister Hague zich op baseert.

    Gisteravond waren er ook berichten dat Kadhafi het land had verlaten. Tegen de verwachting in sprak hij niet zelf het volk toe, maar deed zijn zoon dat. De Libische leider heeft goede banden met de Venezolaanse president Hugo Chávez.

    De Libische staatssecretaris van Buitenlandse Zaken ontkent dat Kadhafi is gevlucht naar Venezuela. Ook bronnen binnen de regering van Venezuela ontkennen dat Kadhafi onderweg is naar het land. De minister van Informatie noemt de berichten “onwaar”, maar ging er verder niet op in.

    Europe’s interests in Libya


    EU countries have criticised Libya for a crackdown on protesters, potentially straining lucrative trade relations.

    Last Modified: 21 Feb 2011 20:24 GMT
    The West forged close ties with Libya after Gaddafi agreed to end production of weapons of mass destruction [EPA] 

    The European Union has condemned Libya for its crackdown on opposition protesters, but for many nations in the bloc, straining ties with Tripoli presents an awkward situation.

    Western nations forged close trade ties with the north African nation after Muammar Gaddafi agreed in 2003 to end the production of weapons of mass destruction, ending nearly two decades of sanctions.

    European energy firms were quick to invest in the holder of Africa’s largest proven oil reserves, the eighth-largest in the world, while many others signed lucrative arms and construction deals.

    Tony Blair, Britain’s former prime minister, signed a so-called “Deal in the Desert” in March 2004, which paved the way for oil contracts worth billions, leading to a close relationship that has come under increasing criticism.

    Oil deals

    It included Anglo-Dutch company Shell signing an agreement worth up to $1bn and three years later BP agreeing its largest exploration commitment to date, in a deal worth at least $900m in Libya.

    It sparked significant controversy around the world and led to US claims that BP lobbied Britain for the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.

    The Italian government of Silvio Berlusconi has also strengthened its ties with Tripoli in recent years, taking the largest proportion of oil from Libya for its national needs.

    At the end of 2008, Italy’s energy company Eni was operating 13 oil and gas permits and its production was 306,000 barrels per day of oil equivalent, about one-fifth of Britain’s total daily oil production.

    Spain’s Repsol also has rights to 15 hydrocarbon blocks.


    Arms deals with Libya have also proved contentious, particularly in light of the recent crackdown.

    In August 2007 France signed contracts with Libya to sell anti-tank missiles and radio communications equipment worth a reported $405m. The European aerospace and defence giant EADS now has an office in Tripoli, and has sold civilian aircraft to the country.

    According to the Campaign Against Arms trade, the UK licensed over $6m worth of ammunition to Libya, including sniper rifles.

    Russia also announced a small-arms and weapons deal to the value of $1.8bn in January 2010, worth nearly a quarter of its state arms exports.

    A building boom in Libya has also seen strong investment from Turkey, which has around 200 construction companies in the country working on projects worth an estimated $15.3bn.

    Sovereign wealth has also attracted business ties from Europe.

    Many of the investments made by the $65bn sovereign wealth fund have been in Italian stocks. It holds a 4.6 per cent stake in Italy’s second-biggest bank, Unicredit and has a small stake in car maker Fiat, the Reuters news agency reported.

    European nations are also interested in preserving relations with Libya for the sake of national security.

    Italy, the closest entry gate for illegal migrants attempting to enter the EU, is especially concerned about an influx of refugees, following the crisis in Tunisia.

    Tripoli has already warned it could suspend co-operation in the fight against illegal immigration if European countries continue to criticise its action against protesters.

    Al Jazeera and agencies


    Libya protests spread and intensify


    Diplomats resign and air force officers defect as Gaddafi government resorts to shooting and bombing to crush uprising.

    Last Modified: 21 Feb 2011 22:14 GMT
    Protests against Gaddafi’s rule have prompted harsh reprisals in several cities, including the capital Tripoli [Reuters]

    Scores of people have been reported killed in continuing violence in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, amid escalating protests against Muammar Gaddafi’s 40-year rule across the north African nation.

    Deep cracks were showing and Gaddafi seemed to be losing vital support, as Libyan government officials at home and abroad resigned, air force pilots defected and major government buildings were targeted during clashes in the capital.

    At least 61 people were killed in Tripoli on Monday, witnesses told Al Jazeera. The protests appeared to be gathering momentum, with demonstrators saying they had taken control of several important towns and the city of Benghazi, to the east of Tripoli.

    Protesters called on Monday for another night of defiance against Gaddafi, despite a harsh security crackdown by his government.

    A huge anti-government march in Tripoli on Monday afternoon came under attack by security forces using fighter jets and live ammunition, witnesses told Al Jazeera.

    Libyan authorities have cut all landline and wireless communication in the country, making it impossible to verify the report.

    As violence flared, the Reuters news agency quoted William Hague, the British foreign secretary, as saying he had seen some information to suggest that Gaddafi had fled Libya and was on his way to Venezuela.

    But Al Jazeera’s Dima Khatib, reporting from the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, said government officials there denied that Gaddafi was on his way to the South American country.

    Live Blog

    The Libyan deputy foreign minister also denied that Gaddafi had fled the country.

    With reports of large-scale military operations under way in Tripoli, a spokesperson for Ban Ki-moon said the UN chief held extensive discussions with Gaddafi on Monday, condemned the escalating violence in Libya and told him that it “must stop immediately”.

    ” … The secretary-general underlined the need to ensure the protection of the civilian population under any circumstances. He urged all parties to exercise restraint and called upon the authorities to engage in broad-based dialogue to address legitimate concerns of the population,” Ban’s spokesperson said.

    For this part, several Libyan diplomats at the country’s UN mission called on Gaddafi to step down.

    Ibrahim Dabbashi, the deputy ambassador, said that if Gaddafi did not relinquish power, “the Libyan people [would] get rid of him”.

    “We don’t agree with anything the regime is doing … we are here to serve the Libyan people,” he told Al Jazeera.

    Plea for no-fly zone

    Dabbashi urged the international community to impose a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent mercenaries, weapons and other supplies from reaching Gaddafi and his security forces.

    He said the Libyan diplomats were urging the International Criminal Court, the Netherlands-based body, to investigate possible crimes against humanity in the Libyan context.

    Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr Al-Thani, Qatar’s prime minister and foreign minister, called for an extraordinary meeting of the Arab League to take place on Tuesday. The aim is to discuss the current crisis in Libya and to put additional “pressure” on the government, he told Al Jazeera.

    Talking to Al Jazeera, Libya’s deputy ambassador to the UN Ibrahim Dabbashi condemns Gaddafi’s regime

    Hamad bin Jassim said the international community must act now. “I feel a big sympathy for the Libyan people. We don’t accept using force in this way or any way against the people or against any nation from their governments,” he said.

    “And we make our declaration in this space and we think that the international community should also take a stand against what is happening in Libya at the moment.”

    “I think the [UN] Security Council has to play a role. The condemnation is not enough … I think the five permanent members and others, they should take the responsibility and do something to help the civillian people in Libya, because what is happening is not acceptable in any way.”

    Earlier in on Monday, Ahmed Elgazir, a human-rights researcher at the Libyan News Centre (LNC) in Geneva, Switzerland, told Al Jazeera that security forces were “massacring” protesters in Tripoli.

    Elgazir said the LNC received a call for help from a woman “witnessing the massacre in progress who called on a satellite phone”.

    Earlier, a privately run local newspaper reported that the Libyan justice minister had resigned over the use of deadly force against protesters.

    Speaking to Al Jazeera, Ahmad Jibreel, a Libyan diplomat, confirmed that the justice minister, Mustapha Abdul Jalil, had sided with the protesters.

    “I was speaking to the minister of justice just a few minutes ago … he told me personally, he told me he had joined the supporters. He is trying to organise good things in all cities,” he said.

    In protesters’ hands

    Jibreel further said that key cities near Libya’s border with Egypt were now in the hands of protesters, which he said would enable the foreign media to enter the country.

    “Gaddafi’s guards started shooting people in the second day … when they killed two people, we had more than 5,000 at their funeral, and when they killed 15 people the next day, we had more than 50,000 the following day,” he said, adding “the more Gaddafi kills people, the more people go into the streets.”

    Meanwhile, the US and other European nations, including Portugal, Italy, Austria and the Netherlands have taken steps to begin evacuating their citizens from Libya, as safety concerns within the country are on the rise.


    Twitter Reaction

    Libya Protests

    MahomedyHussein profile

    MahomedyHussein RT @shishibean: #Libyans massacred by shaytan #Gaddafi are bringing flashbacks of the traumatic images of #Gaza two yrs ago. God help them. #Libya #Feb17 12 seconds ago · reply


      10 new tweets

    SohaibThiab profile

    SohaibThiab Ada are being placed in Nigeria hiring mercenaries for $2k a day to fight in #Libya according to Aljazeera #Gaddafi 39 seconds ago · reply

    tammersalem profile

    tammersalem RT @monaeltahawy: On #Egyptian TV? RT @France24_en #LIBYA: AlArabya reports #Gaddafi will make a speech on Egyptian TV “soon” http://f24.my/LiveBlogEN #Feb17 32 seconds ago · reply

    Jnoubiyeh profile

    Jnoubiyeh The death toll keeps rising in #Libya. At least 500 Libyans are estimated to have been murdered by #Gaddafi since the uprising began. #Feb17 yesterday · reply 600+ recent retweets

    In another development on Monday, two Libyan air force jets landed in Malta and their pilots asked for political asylum, according to a military source.

    The pilots, who made an unauthorised landing in Malta, claimed to have defected after failing to follow orders to attack civilians protesting in Benghazi in Libya, Karl Stagno-Navarra, an Al Jazeera contributor, said from Valletta.

    The  pilots, who claimed to be colonels in the Libyan air force, were being questioned by authorities in an attempt to verify their identities.

    The two Mirage jets landed at Malta’s international airport shortly after two civilian helicopters landed carrying seven people who said they were French. Only one of the passengers had a passport.

    Against this backdrop of escalating violence, Libyan state television reported that Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, a son of the Libyan leader, was forming a committee to investigate the incidents taking place in the country

    Earlier in the day, Saif al-Islam warned of a civil war if anti-government protests continued to spread in the country.

    Speaking on state television, he blamed thugs, foreigners and Islamists for the unrest.

    He promised a conference on constitutional reforms within two days and said Libyans should “forget oil and petrol” and prepare themselves for occupation by “the West” if they failed to agree.

    The younger Gaddafi contrasted the situation in Libya with revolts earlier this year in Egypt and Tunisia, where longtime rulers were forced step down or fled in the face of mass popular discontent.

    Protesters in Libya have similarly called for Muammar Gaddafi’s overthrow, but his son warned against this, saying “Libya is different, if there is disturbance it will split into several states”.

    Following Saif al-Islam Gaddafi’s speech, witnesses in Tripoli reported an escalation of violence, as supporters of his father flooded into the city’s central square and confronted anti-government protesters.

    Armed men in uniform fired into the crowds, witnesses said, and continuous gunfire could be heard in the background of recorded phone calls from Tripoli released to journalists by Libyans living abroad.

    Al Jazeera and agencies


    Libya’s falling tyrant


    Gaddafi reaps what he has sown during his four-decade rule: terror, nepotism, tribal politics and abuse of power.

    Larbi Sadiki Last Modified: 21 Feb 2011 23:03 GMT
    Gaddafi, now facing a bloody uprising, has ruled oil-rich Libya with an iron fist since a coup in 1969 [Reuters] 

    Libya cannot escape the infection of democratic revolutionary wind blowing through the Middle East and North Africa. If longtime leader Muammar Gaddafi falls, it will be a sweet victory for the heirs of Omar al-Mokhtar, the legendary anti-fascist and anti-colonial hero. But a lot of blood will spill before the Libyan colonel abandons ship.

    After Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Tunisia’s Ben Ali, Gaddafi is the worst of the Arabs’ surviving illegitimate rulers. He is now reaping what he has sown: terror, nepotism, tribal politics, and abuse of power.

    In Gaddafi’s Libya, the so-called People’s Congress, universities and other regime-affiliated organisations have had to toe the official line: worship of the “brother leader”, read his Green Book, and the brand of Pan-Africanism that no Libyan except Gaddafi and his henchmen believed in.

    While visiting the country with a group of students from Exeter University, the hollow slogans of Gaddafi’s “Great Revolution” covered all public space. “Partners not salaried” one says. Another declares “People’s rule” (sultat al-sha’ab). Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Gaddafi has ruled the country with the delusion of grandeur of a man who rose to power in a 1969 coup with fairly acceptable political ideals that got corrupted and abandoned. Gaddafi’s much vaunted socialism turned into distribution in favour of the Colonel’s clansmen.

    Inner circle

    An inner circle of Gaddafi’s confidants and close relatives decided and executed the hangings of the 1970s, relying on the fearsome and murderous “revolutionary committees”.

    No recourse to the people was taken when decisions were made and carried out about war such as in Chad and elsewhere in Africa. The people could not openly complain about the money lavishly disbursed in the pursuit of Gaddafi’s foreign adventurism, including the sponsoring of terrorist organisations.

    Gaddafi’s regime has been linked to the 1972 Black September killings of Israeli athletes in Germany ,  the 1978 disappearance in Libya of Shia Imam Musa Al-Sadr, the 1984 murder of British police officer Yvonne Fletcher, the 1986 bombing of Berlin’s La Belle Discotheque, the 1987 arms vessel destined to the Irish Republican Army, and to the hijacking of Pan Am flight 73 in 1986 and the 1988 Pan Am flight 103 bombing. This does not exhaust the list.

    The US bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi in 1986 or the large amounts of monies paid by Gaddafi to compensate all kinds of claims against Libya have been some of the prices paid by Libyans for their leader’s miscalculation.

    The sanctions and pariah status have only been eased only in the past 10 years. Carrying the green Libyan passport has made Libyan citizens persona non grata in many parts of the world.

    Gaddafi’s narcissism was such that very few of his comrades in arms from the original Free Officers cohort that executed the 1969 coup against King Idris have survived his brutality.

    A few died in mysterious circumstances (Omar Limheshi; Imhammad al-Muqrif). Others withdrew from public life voluntarily (Abd al-Salam Jelloud).

    Act of public disavowal

    Like Egypt, the uprising in Libya qualifies as an act of public disavowal of an existing regime. These are countries which had military revolutions and today are experiencing civil revolutions.

    Like Tunisia, but in a worse fashion, Libya has invested very little in social capital or civic capacity building. All organisations are committed to, and affiliated with, Gaddafi’s Great Revolution. Literally, these are cells that spy on the people or militias bribed to defend the regime. When protesters wave flags, chant pro-Gaddafi or anti-Western slogans, they do so on regime orders.

    Regardless, Libyans have not been passive. For instance, the Libyan League for Human Rights, the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition (NCLO), and the banned Islamists all have used the internet to express their anger. In some cases, Libyan dissidents used the Internet as a political tool before activists in other part of the Middle East. The NCLO met in London in 2006 and it may plan a role in reforming post-Gaddafi Libya.

    Attempts at removing Gaddafi began in the mid-1980s. The most famous was the May 1984  Bab Al-Aziziya Barracks coup when the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, made up of military and civilian dissidents, played a leading role.

    The most serious challenge against Gaddafi’s authority came from the most populous and powerful Libyan tribe, the Warfallah, in October 1993. The rebellion led to kangaroo trials in 1995. Many tribesmen were executed in 1997.

    The eastern region, Benghazi, has always been a source of dissidence against the regime. Dozens died in protests in 2006.The map of the current mutiny is both tribal and regional. Two tribes have withdrawn allegiance to Gaddafi’s regime, thus settling old scores. Gaddafi is now paying the price for humiliating the Wirfallah tribe, which he has excluded from his favours since the mid-1990s. Similarly, the Tabu tribe in the country’s southeast has suffered appalling discrimination.

    The misery belts of Libya are now leading the rebellion. Cities like Al-Baida, Derna, Ijdadia are all marginalised and are not beholden to Gaddafi, as they have not gained from his rule. Tripoli’s poorest suburbs, Zintan and Zawiya, which have come under heavy fire, are leading the rebellion in the capital.

    Why is the revolution that ousted Tunisia’s Ben Ali proving to be infectious? The reasons can be summed up by the following factors: the presence of a Ben Ali-type hegemon; dynastic and nepotistic rot; monarchical republicanism; rampant corruption; the marginalisation of young people; human rights violations; information control and a police state.

    All of these conditions apply to Libya. The only good in Gaddafi’s Libya is the absence of elections, which spared the Gaddafi’s revolutionary committees the additional misdemeanour of rigging them.

    In addition to these factors, the eastern region, namely Benghazi, has been deprived of the dividends of petroleum. In a country with one of the longest stretches of coastline and high oil production, income and opportunity should be available to citizens. But this is has not been the case. Now, Gaddafi is reaping what he has sown.

    Dr Larbi Sadiki is a Senior Lecturer in Middle East Politics at the University of Exeter, and author of Arab Democratisation: Elections without Democracy (Oxford University Press, 2009) and The Search for Arab Democracy: Discourses and Counter-Discourses (Columbia University Press, 2004), forthcoming Hamas and the Political Process (2011).

    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

    Al Jazeera




    Libyan pilots and diplomats defect


    Group of army officers have also issued a statement urging fellow soldiers to “join the people” and help remove Gaddafi.

    Last Modified: 21 Feb 2011 23:29 GMT
    The pilots claimed to have defected after refusing to follow orders to attack civilians protesting in Libya [AFP] 

    Two Libyan air force jets landed in Malta on Monday and their pilots have asked for political asylum.

    The pilots claimed to have defected after refusing to follow orders to attack civilians protesting in Benghazi in Libya.

    The pilots, who said they were colonels in the Libyan air force, were being questioned by authorities in an attempt to verify their identities.

    Meanwhile, a group of Libyan army officers have issued a statement urging fellow soldiers to “join the people” and help remove Muammar Gaddafi.

    The officers urged the rest of the Libyan army to march to Tripoli.

    Earlier, diplomats at Libya’s mission to the United Nations sided on Monday with the revolt against their country’s leader and called on the Libyan army to help overthrow “the tyrant Muammar Gaddafi.”

    In a statement issued as protests erupted across Libya, the mission’s deputy chief and other staff said they were serving the Libyan people, demanded “the removal of the regime immediately” and urged other Libyan embassies to follow suit.

    Gaddafi was waging a bloody battle to hang on to power as the revolt against his 41-year rule reached the capital, Tripoli.

    The statement issued in New York said hundreds had died in the first five days of the uprising.

    A spokesman for the UN mission, Dia al-Hotmani, said the statement had been issued by deputy permanent representative Ibrahim Dabbashi and other staff.

    Other Libyan officials said they did not know the whereabouts of permanent representative Abdurrahman Shalgham, a former Libyan foreign minister, but believed he was not in New York. He was not associated with the statement, they said.

    Hotmani said that at a meeting on Monday at the mission’s New York offices, staff “expressed our sense of concern about the genocide going on in Libya.”

    “We are not seeing any reaction from the international community,” he added.

    “The tyrant Muammar Gaddafi has asserted clearly, through his sons the level of ignorance he and his children have, and how much he despises Libya and the Libyan people,” the Arabic language statement said.

     It condemned Gaddafi’s use of “African mercenaries” to try to put down the rebellion and said it expected “an unprecedented massacre in Tripoli.”

     ‘Cut the snake’s head’


    The statement called on “the officers and soldiers of the Libyan army wherever they are and whatever their rank is … to organise themselves and move towards Tripoli and cut the snake’s head.”

     It appealed to the United Nations to impose a no-fly zone over Libyan cities to prevent mercenaries and weapons being shipped in.

    It also urged guards at Libya’s oil installations to protect them from any sabotage “by the coward tyrant,” and urged countries to prevent Gaddafi from fleeing there and to be on the lookout for any money smuggling.

    Dabbashi and his colleagues called on The Hague-based International Criminal Court to start an immediate inquiry into war crimes and crimes against humanity they said Gaddafi and his sons and followers had committed.

    They called on employees of Libyan embassies all over the world to “stand with their people”, especially the mission at the UN European headquarters in Geneva, which they said should seek action by the UN Human Rights Council there.

     It was not immediately clear how many other Libyan embassies were likely to heed the call, although the country’s ambassador in India, Ali al-Essawi, said he was resigning in protest at the violent crackdown in his homeland.

    Libya’s ambassadors to the European Union, Bangladesh and Indonesia have also resigned

    Al Jazeera and agencies



    In Depth


    Profile: Muammar Gaddafi


    Oil-rich Libya’s eccentric leader has held the country in a tight grip since he led a bloodless coup in 1969.

    Last Modified: 21 Feb 2011 22:33 GMT
    Gaddafi is known as much for his eccentric clothing and female bodyguards as for his repressive rule [EPA] 

    In power since 1969, Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi is the longest-serving leader in both Africa and the Arab world.

    He led a bloodless coup toppling King Idris at the age of 27, and has since maintained tight control of his oil-rich country by clamping down on dissidents. The ongoing bloody uprising poses the most serious domestic challenge to his rule.

    Among his many eccentricities, Gaddafi is known to sleep in a Bedouin tent guarded by dozens of female bodyguards on trips abroad. 

    Gaddafi was born in 1942 in the coastal area of Sirte to nomadic parents. He went to Benghazi University to study geography, but dropped out to join the army.

    After seizing power, he laid out a pan-Arab, anti-imperialist philosophy, blended with aspects of Islam. While he permitted private control over small companies, the government controlled the larger ones.

    He was an admirer of the Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser and his Arab socialist and nationalist ideology.

    He tried without success to merge Libya, Egypt and Syria into a federation. A similar attempt to join Libya and Tunisia ended in acrimony.

    Crushing dissident

    In 1977 he changed the country’s name to the Great Socialist Popular Libyan Arab Jamahiriyah (State of the Masses) and allowed people to air their views at people’s congresses. 

    However, critics dismissed his leadership as a military dictatorship, accusing him of repressing civil society and ruthlessly crushing dissident.

    To this day, the media remains under strict government control.

    The regime has imprisoned hundreds of people for violating the law and sentenced some to death, according to Human Rights Watch.

    At the UN General Assembly in 2009, Gaddafi accused the body of being a terrorism group like al-Qaeda [EPA] 

    Gaddafi played a prominent role in organising Arab opposition to the 1978 Camp David peace agreement between Egypt and Israel.

    Later shunned by a number of Arab states on the basis of his extreme views on how to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict among others, Gaddafi’s foreign policy shifted from an Arab focus to an African focus.

    His vision of a United States of Africa resulted in the foundation of the African Union.

    In the West, Gaddafi is strongly associated with “terrorism”, accused of supporting armed groups including FARC in Colombia and the IRA in Northern Ireland.

    Libya’s alleged involvement in the 1986 bombing of a Berlin nightclub in which two American soldiers were killed prompted US air attacks on Tripoli and Benghazi, killing 35 Libyans, including Gaddafi’s adopted daughter. Ronald Reagan, the then US president, called him a “mad dog”.

    The 1988 bombing of the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie in Scotland is possibly the most well known and controversial international incident in which Gaddafi has been involved.

    For many years, Gaddafi denied involvement, resulting in UN sanctions and Libya’s status as a pariah state. Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence agent, was convicted for planting the bomb. Gaddafi’s regime formally accepted responsibility for the attack in 2003 and paid compensation to the families of those who died.

    Isolation ended

    Also in 2003, Gaddafi broke Libya’s isolation from the West by relinquishing his entire inventory of weapons of mass destruction.

    In September 2004, George Bush, the US president at the time, formally ended a US trade embargo as a result of Gaddafi’s scrapping of the arms programme and taking responsibility for Lockerbie.

    The normalisation of relations with Western powers has allowed the Libyan economy to grow and the oil industry in particular has benefited.

    However, Gaddafi and Lockerbie came back into the spotlight in 2009, when al-Megrahi was released and returned to Libya. The hero’s welcome al-Megrahi received from Gaddafi on his return was condemned by the the US and the UK, among others.

    In September 2009, Gaddafi visited the US for the first time for his his first appearance at the UN General Assembly.

    His speech was supposed to be 15 minutes, but exceeded an hour and a half. He tore up a copy of the UN charter, accused the Security Council of being a terrorism body similar to al-Qaeda, and demanded $ 7.7 trillion in compensation to be paid to Africa from its past colonial rulers.

    During a visit to Italy in August 2010, Gaddafi’s invitation to hundreds of young women to convert to Islam overshadowed the two-day trip, which was intended to cement the growing ties between Tripoli and Rome.




    Gaddafi’s hold on Libya weakens


    Leader appears on state TV briefly to signal defiance in the face of mounting revolt against his 41-year rule.

    Last Modified: 22 Feb 2011 00:58 GMT
    Protesters in Libya have called for another night of defiance against Muammar Gaddafi’s government [Reuters]

    Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has appeared on state television to signal his defiance in the face of a mounting revolt against his 41-year rule.

    “I am in Tripoli and not in Venezuela. Do not believe the channels belonging to stray dogs,” Gaddafi told Libyan state TV, which said he was speaking outside his house on Tuesday

    Live Blog

    Reports on Monday said Gaddafi had fled to Venezuela.

    Gaddafi, in his first televised appearance since protests to topple him started last week, was holding an umbrella in the rain and leaning out of a van.

    “I wanted to say something to the youths at the Green Square (in Tripoli) and stay up late with them but it started raining. Thank God, it’s a good thing,” Gaddafi said in a 22-second appearance.

    State TV reported earlier that pro-government demonstrations were taking place in Green Square in the capital.

    Libyan forces loyal to Gaddafi have fought an increasingly bloody battle to keep the veteran leader in power with residents reporting gunfire in parts of the capital Tripoli and one political activist saying warplanes had bombed the city.

    Scores of people have been reported killed in continuing violence in Tripoli amid escalating protests across the north African nation.

    Marwan Bishara, Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst, said “in a sense this is a pariah regime that will not have any chance of governing anymore and the international community could come to terms on whether this is a genocide and whether there should be international intervention to protect the Libyan people from the militias of the regime”.

    “We’ve heard even a NATO spokesman saying that the Libyan regime should stop committing war crimes against its people so I think there is momentum out there but certainly it’s not quick enough.”

    Deep cracks were showing and Gaddafi seemed to be losing vital support, as Libyan government officials at home and abroad resigned, air force pilots defected and major government buildings were targeted during clashes in the capital.

    At least 61 people were killed in the capital city on Monday, witnesses told Al Jazeera. The protests appeared to be gathering momentum, with demonstrators saying they have taken control of several important towns and the city of Benghazi, to the east of Tripoli.

    Protesters called for another night of defiance against the Arab world’s longest-serving leader, despite a crackdown by authorities

     Libya’s deputy ambassador to the United Nations, Ibrahim Dabbashi, spoke to Al Jazeera

    A huge anti-government march in Tripoli on Monday afternoon came under attack by security forces using fighter jets and live ammunition, witnesses told Al Jazeera.

    “What we are witnessing today is unimaginable. Warplanes and helicopters are indiscriminately bombing one area after another. There are many, many dead,” Adel Mohamed Saleh said in a live broadcast .

    “Anyone who moves, even if they are in their car, they will hit you.”

     US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it was “time to stop this unnacceptable bloodshed” in Libya.

    A group of army officers issued a statement urging fellow soldiers to “join the people” and help remove Gaddafi.

    The justice minister resigned in protest at the “excessive use of violence” against protesters and diplomats at Libya’s mission to the United Nations called on the Libyan army to help overthrow “the tyrant Muammar Gaddafi”.

    Both Libya and Venezuela denied reports that Gaddafi had fled to the South American country.

    Libyan state television said Gaddafi would give a speech shortly.


    Twitter Reaction

    Libya Protests

    cute_Noona profile

    cute_Noona RT @A_Awwad: عايز انام يخرب بيتك .. هتكمل الخطاب امتى ؟ #Feb17 #Libya #gaddafi 47 seconds ago · reply

    doubleass profile

    doubleass RT @libya: More deaths at hands of Libyan govt. alleged http://reut.rs/dGr0BX #Libya #Gaddafi #Tripoli #protests #Tripoli 38 seconds ago · reply

    doubleass profile

    doubleass RT @libya: Thousands of people attempt to flee Libya http://bit.ly/eW6YDg #Libya #Tripoli #Gaddafi #protests #Malta #Italy #Serbia #Turkey 28 seconds ago · reply


      3 new tweets

    glaciergirl75 profile

    glaciergirl75 Chaos reigns in #Libya – #Gaddafi brings an umbrella but zero substance to 1st appearance since violent downpour began: http://tiny.cc/d3z04 41 seconds ago · reply

    Two Libyan fighter jets landed in Malta, their pilots defecting after they said they had been ordered to bomb protesters, Maltese government officials said.

    Libyan authorities have cut all landline and wireless communication in the country, making it impossible to verify the report.

    With reports of large-scale military operations under way in Tripoli, a spokesperson for Ban Ki-moon said the UN chief held extensive discussions with Gaddafi on Monday, condemned the escalating violence in Libya and told him that it “must stop immediately”.

    ” … The secretary-general underlined the need to ensure the protection of the civilian population under any circumstances. He urged all parties to exercise restraint and called upon the authorities to engage in broad-based dialogue to address legitimate concerns of the population,” Ban’s spokesperson said.

    For this part, several Libyan diplomats at the country’s UN mission called on Gaddafi to step down.

    Ibrahim Dabbashi, the deputy ambassador, said that if Gaddafi did not relinquish power, “the Libyan people [would] get rid of him”.

    “We don’t agree with anything the regime is doing … we are here to serve the Libyan people,” he told Al Jazeera.

    Dabbashi urged the international community to impose a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent mercenaries, weapons and other supplies from reaching Gaddafi and his security forces.

    Arab League to meet

    Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al-Thani, Qatar’s prime minister and foreign minister, called for an extraordinary meeting of the Arab League to take place on Tuesday. The aim is to discuss the current crisis in Libya and to put additional “pressure” on the government, Al-Thani told Al Jazeera.

    He said the international community must act now. “I feel a big sympathy for the Libyan people. We don’t accept using force in this way or any way against the people or against any nation from their governments.,” he said on Monday.

    “And we make our declaration in this space and we think that the international community should also take a stand against what is happening in Libya at the moment.”

    “I think the security council has to play a role.. the condemnation is not enough.. i think the five permanent members and others, they should take the responsibility and do something to help the civillian people in Libya, because what happens is not accepted in any way.”

    The comments came just hours after Ahmed Elgazir, a human-rights researcher at the Libyan News Centre (LNC) in Geneva, Switzerland, told Al Jazeera that security forces were “massacring” protesters in Tripoli.

    Elgazir said the LNC received a call for help from a woman “witnessing the massacre in progress who called on a satellite phone”.

    Earlier, a privately run local newspaper reported that the Libyan justice minister had resigned over the use of deadly force against protesters.

    Speaking to Al Jazeera, Ahmad Jibreel, a Libyan diplomat, confirmed that the justice minister, Mustapha Abdul Jalil, had sided with the protesters.

    “I was speaking to the minister of justice just a few minutes ago … he told me personally, he told me he had joined the supporters. He is trying to organise good things in all cities,” he said.

    Jibreel further said that key cities near Libya’s border with Egypt were now in the hands of protesters, which he said would enable the foreign media to enter the country.

    “Gaddafi’s guards started shooting people in the second day … when they killed two people, we had more than 5,000 at their funeral, and when they killed 15 people the next day, we had more than 50,000 the following day,” he said, adding “the more Gaddafi kills people, the more people go into the streets.”

    Al Jazeera and agencies




    recent ‘interview’ met Khadaffi (21-2-2011).

    Toegevoegd: dinsdag 22 feb 2011, 01:35
    Update: dinsdag 22 feb 2011, 12:05

    De Libische leider Kadhafi lijkt de steun in bijna alle lagen van de bevolking te hebben verloren. Libische ambassadeurs keren zich tegen het regime omdat ze het geweld tegen de bevolking onacceptabel vinden.

    Volgens de ambassadeur in India zet Kadhafi Afrikaanse huurlingen in om de protesten neer te slaan. In reactie daarop zouden opnieuw Libische militairen zijn overgelopen naar de oppositie.

    Een groep officieren riep vannacht het leger op zich aan te sluiten bij het volk en Kadhafi af te zetten. Ze vroegen de militairen mee te doen aan een mars naar Tripoli.


    Hoe groot de steun in het leger voor Kadhafi nog is, is onduidelijk. De oostelijke steden al-Bayda en Benghazi zouden in handen zijn van de oppositie. De VN-Veiligheidsraad komt vandaag bijeen om over de situatie in Libië te praten.

    In Tripoli hangt een grimmige sfeer. Veiligheidstroepen hebben wijken afgegrendeld.

    Kadhafi heeft op de staatstelevisie laten weten dat hij in de hoofdstad is en niet in Venezuela bij zijn vriend Hugo Chavez. Eerder sprak Venezuela al tegen dat Kadhafi naar dat land is uitgeweken.


    Kadhafi was 22 seconden in beeld, leunend uit een auto met een paraplu op. Hij riep op niet te geloven wat er wordt gezegd op “zenders die van zwerfhonden zijn”.

    Eerder werd aangekondigd dat Kadhafi een toespraak zou houden waarin hij “de kwaadaardige leugens in de media” zou tegenspreken, maar het bleef bij de korte verklaring, zittend in een auto.

    Een zoon van Kadhafi zei op de staats-tv dat het leger achter zijn vader staat en zal vechten tot de laatste man. De minister van Justitie besloot gisteren af te treden, uit protest tegen het geweld tegen de betogers.


    Bij de volksopstand zijn gisteren veel doden gevallen. Volgens betogers zijn in de hoofdstad alleen al 250 mensen omgekomen, toen straaljagers, helikopters en tanks het vuur openden.

    Vandaag komt de VN-Veiligheidsraad bijeen om te praten over de crisis. VN-chef Ban Ki-moon heeft gebeld met Kadhafi en hem dringend verzocht het geweld te stoppen.

    De PvdA wil morgen een spoeddebat met minister Rosenthal (Buitenlandse Zaken) in de Tweede Kamer.

    Een democratische omwenteling in de Arabische Wereld? Deel 6– 6 ثورة ديمقراطية في العالم العربي؟ جزء

    nieuws en artikelenoverzicht van de actuele gebeurtenissen in de Arabische wereld deel 6 (zie ook deel 1, deel 2, deel 3, deel 4 en deel 5)


    Voor de nieuwste ontwikkelingen, bekijk hieronder

    Al-Jazeera English live


    Palestinian Authority closes Al-Jazeera office

    klik op bovenstaand logo




    Deadly ‘day of rage’ in Libya


    Reports of more than a dozen deaths as protesters heed calls for mass protests against government, despite a crackdown.

    Last Modified: 17 Feb 2011 20:30 GMT
    Libyan protesters seeking to oust longtime leader Moammar Gadhafi have defied a crackdown and taken to the streets on what activists have dubbed a “day of rage”.There are reports that more than a dozen demonstrators have been killed in clashes with pro-government groups.Opponents of Gaddafi, communicating anonymously online or working in exile, urged people to protest on Thursday to try to emulate popular uprisings which unseated long-serving rulers in neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt.”Today the Libyans broke the barrier or fear, it is a new dawn,” Faiz Jibril, an opposition leader in exile, said.

    Live Blog

    Abdullah, an eyewitness in the country’s second largest city of Benghazi, who spoke to Al Jazeera, said that he saw six unarmed protesters shot dead by police on Thursday.

    He also said that the government had released 30 people from jail, paying and arming them to fight people in the street.

    Opposition website Libya Al-Youm said four protesters were killed by snipers from the Internal Security Forces in the eastern city of al-Baida, which had protests on Wednesday and Thursday, AP news agency reported.

    “Libya is a free country, and people, they can say, can show their ideas, and the main thing is that it has to be in the frame of the law and it has to be peaceful, and that’s it, ” Libyan ambassador to the US, Ali Suleiman Aujali, told Al Jazeera on Thursday.

    Sites monitored in Cyprus, and a Libyan human rights group based abroad, reported earlier that the protests in al-Baida had cost as many as 13 lives.

    When asked about the people who had allegedly been killed, Aujali told Al Jazeera “I’m really very busy here … and I have some delegations, and I don’t have time to follow up with every piece of news.”

    “I am confident that Libya will handle this issue with great respect for the people,” he said.

    Increasing casualties

    Mohammed Ali Abdellah, deputy leader of the exiled National Front for the Salvation of Libya, said that hospitals in al-Baida were experiencing a shortage of medical supplies, saying the government had refused to provide them to treat an increasing number of protesters.


    Abdellah quoted hospital officials in the town as saying that about 70 people have been admitted since Wednesday night, about half of them critically injured by gunshot wounds.

    The Quryna newspaper, which is close to Gaddafi’s son, cited official sources and put the death toll at two. It traced the unrest to a police shutdown of local shops that had soon escalated.

    The interior ministry fired the head of security in Al-Jabal Al-Akhdar province in the aftermath of the violence, in which protesters had torched “several police cars and citizens,” the paper said on its website.

    Several hundred supporters of Gaddafi also gathered in the capital, Tripoli, to counter calls for anti-government protests and they were joined by Gaddafi himself.

    ‘Down with Gaddafi’

    Clashes also broke out in the city of Zentan, southwest of the capital, in which a number of government buildings were torched.

    Fathi al-Warfali, a Swiss-based activist and head of the Libyan Committee for Truth and Justice, said two more people were killed in Zentan on Thursday ,while one protester was killed in Rijban, a town about 120km southwest of Tripoli.

    He said protesters on Thursday in the coastal city of Darnah were chanting “`the people want the ouster of the regime” – a popular slogan from protests in Tunisia and Egypt – when thugs and police attacked them.

    A video provided by al-Warfali of the scene in Zentan showed marchers chanting and holding a banner that read “Down with Gaddafi. Down with the regime.”

    Another video showed protests by lawyers in Benghazi on Thursday demanding political and economic reform while a third depicted a demonstration in Shahat, a small town southwest of Benghazi.

    Government warning

    Libya has been tightly controlled for over 40 years by Gaddafi, who is now Africa’s longest-serving leader.

    Thursday is the anniversary of clashes that took place on February 17, 2006 in Benghazi, when security forces killed several protesters who were attacking the city’s Italian consulate.

    According to reports on Twitter, the microblogging site, Libya’s regime had been sending text messages to people warning them that live bullets will be fired if they join today’s protests.

    New York-based Human Rights Watch said that Libyan authorities had detained 14 activists, writers and protesters who had been preparing the anti-government demonstrations.

    Al-Warfali said 11 protesters were killed in al-Baida on Wednesday night, and scores were wounded. He said the government dispatched army commandos to quell the uprising.

    In a telephone interview with Al Jazeera on Wednesday, Idris Al-Mesmari, a Libyan novelist and writer, said that security officials in civilian clothes came and dispersed protesters in Benghazi using tear gas, batons and hot water.

    Al-Mesmari was arrested hours after the interview.

    Media blocked

    Late on Wednesday evening, it was impossible to contact witnesses in Benghazi because telephone connections to the city appeared to be out of order.

    Social media sites were reportedly blocked for several hours through the afternoon, but access was restored in the evening.

    Al Jazeera is understood to have been taken off the state-owned cable TV network, but is still reportedly available on satellite networks.

    Though some Libyans complain about unemployment, inequality and limits on political freedoms, analysts say that an Egypt-style revolt is unlikely because the government can use oil revenues to smooth over most social problems.

    Libya accounts for about two per cent of the world’s crude oil exports.

    Companies including Shell, BP and Eni have invested billions of dollars in tapping its oil fields, home to the largest proven reserves in Africa.

    If you are in Libya and have witnessed protests then send your pictures and videos to http://yourmedia.aljazeera.net



    Winds of change in the Arab world

    Inspired by protests in Egypt and Tunisia, rumblings of discontent are growing across the region.
    Riz Khan Last Modified: 07 Feb 2011 09:49 GMT
    Could the pro-democracy protests in Egypt generate an unstoppable momentum for political reform across the Arab world?The impact of those demonstrations is being felt in other Arab countries where people are also speaking out against the lack of political rights and freedoms.As the rumblings of discontent grow, leaders in countries such as Yemen, Jordan and Algeria have introduced new policies for political and economic change.


    Send us your views and get your voice on the air

    But opposition supporters are calling those measures inadequate and are demanding a complete overhaul.

    On Monday, we will be discussing the issues with Saadaldeen Talib, the former head of Yemen’s anti-corruption commission and now a critic of President Salah; Syrian human rights and anti-censorship activist Anas Qtiesh and writer and blogger Khalid Lum.



    Here we go again: Egypt to Bahrain


    US pledges for democracy may not extend to Bahrain, even if Obama finally supported Egypt’s rebellion.

    Mark LeVine Last Modified: 18 Feb 2011 13:04 GMT
    The US has been cautious in its statements on the repression of protesters in Bahrain, a key ally [GALLO/GETTY] 

    It took until Hosni Mubarak was safely in Sharm El Sheikh and newly free Egyptians were celebrating in Tahrir square, but president Obama finally came out firmly for democracy in Egypt, no qualifiers attached.

    Obama’s words were eloquent indeed; for my money even more so than his 2009 speech in Cairo. As he explained, what the world had witnessed the previous 18 days was truly “history taking place. The people of Egypt have spoken. Their voices have been heard. And Egypt will never be the same… for Egyptians have made it clear that nothing less than genuine democracy will carry the day.”

    The president went on to detail a set of expectations: protecting the rights of Egypt’s citizens, lifting the emergency law, revising the constitution and other laws to make this change irreversible, and laying out a clear path to elections that are fair and free.

    Those expectations are entirely in line with the core demands of the organisers of the protests-turned-revolution. For that, Obama deserves credit, although at least some should be held in reserve until we see how much pressure his administration is willing to put on the military to ensure that it carries out a full transition to democracy.

    What’s more, in changing themselves, Mr. Obama declared that “Egyptians have inspired us”. They did so in good measure, he rightly explained, through understanding their full worth, as equal members of the larger human history and community. “Most people have discovered in the last few days that they are worth something, and this cannot be taken away from them anymore. Ever.”

    Putting inspiration to the test

    Yet this inspiration is already being put to the test all across the region as the protests spread like a “freedom virus,” as one Cairene taxi driver put it to me the day before I left Cairo.

    As I write this column the Bahraini government is in the process of brutally suppressing the protesters in its own version of Tahrir Square, Pearl Square.

    If the US is Egypt’s primary patron, in Bahrain it is among the ruling family’s biggest tenants, as the country is home to the Fifth Fleet, one of the US military’s most important naval armadas, crucial to protecting Persian Gulf shipping and projecting US power against Iran.

    But while Bahrain has long been depicted as relatively moderate compared with its Salafi neighbor, Saudi Arabia, the reality is that the country is repressive and far from free, as citizens have almost no ability to transform their government, which according to the State Department “restricts civil liberties, freedoms of press, speech, assembly, association, and some religious practices.”

    In the wake of Egypt, where many people harbor resentment against the Administration for its lack of early support for the democracy movement what can Obama do now? Can he in good conscience acquiesce to the brutal suppression of pro-democracy protesters so soon after his eloquent words and late coming to supporting the Egyptian revolution?

    The larger question is: What is more essential to American security today, convenient bases for its ships, planes and troops across the Middle East, or a full transition to democracy throughout the region?

    Al-Qaeda ‘failure’

    The answer is clearly the latter, as evidenced by the fact that America’s two primary antagonists in the Middle East, al-Qaeda and the Iranian government, have seen their standing sink in proportion to the rise of the pro-democracy movements.

    In any war, cold or hot, propaganda is crucial, and here it is impossible to lose sight of the fact that al-Qaeda has had little if anything to say about the Egyptian revolution precisely because it was a massive non-violent jihad that succeeded miraculously where a decade of al-Qaeda blood and vitriol have miserably failed.

    As for Iran, the government’s rhetorical support for the Egyptian revolution while it continues to suppress its own democracy movement is clearly emptying the Iranian regime of any remaining credibility as an alternative to the US-dominated order.

    In this sense the success-so far-of the Egyptian revolution has presented Obama with a unique window of opportunity to forcefully advocate and press for the same kind of democratic transition across the Middle East and North Africa.

    The signs on Tuesday were somewhat optimistic, as the President warned all regional leaders that they should “get ahead of the wave of protest” by moving towards democracy as quickly as possible. Yet Obama refused to mention Bahrain by name in his press conference, even as the government was cracking down on the protesters.

    Instead, the US president argued that “each country is different, each country has its own traditions; America can’t dictate how they run their societies,” an utterly meaningless declaration since it contradicts the very advocacy of democracy that the President has made out of the other side of his mouth.

    And now, once again, in the wake of government violence against peaceful citizens, the Obama administration stands silent, refusing to openly condemn the Bahraini government. Is the administration incapable of learning from mistakes in the immediate past ?

    In fact, Bahrain isn’t even the most important country where the ambivalence of US democracy advocacy continues to frustrate real change.

    From Egypt to Israel

    Not a single Israeli flag was burned (as far as everyone I know from Tahrir can recall) during the 18 days of protest, but while the Israeli occupation remained tangential to the protests, one of the main sources of initial solidarity and coalition building among the young Egyptians who ultimately helped organise the revolution was the outbreak of the second intifada, which led to the formation of a very active branch in Cairo of the Palestine Solidarity Committee (it’s worth noting here that almost no mainstream media analysis of the roots of the youth movement mentions this fact).

    Indeed, after I ran into organisers wearing “End the Occupation” t-shirts, it became clear how similar, and interlinked, were the Israeli occupation and the Mubarak “system’s” (as the protesters referred to them in their numerous chants to bring it down) the occupation of Egypt.

    The reality remains that on its own terms, the Israeli occupation (or rather double occupation, as increasing numbers of Palestinians describe their lives under PA/Hamas and Israeli rule) remains among the most repressive and brutal in the contemporary world, and perhaps its most destabilising.

    And, as with Mubarak, the United States is the most important supporter and enabler of the occupation’s continued presence against the wishes of the vast majority of the people forced to live under it.

    And here, as the Palestine Papers released by Al Jazeera reveal, the words and deeds of the Obama administration have run roughshod over its rhetorical commitment to greater democracy and openness.

    They reveal that senior members of the administration directly threatened Palestinians leaders with a cut-off in aid should they not follow American policies or even resign in response to continued Israeli settlement expansion and other violations of the Oslo agreements.

    The Obama administration needs to tell us if that is still US policy, and if so why democracy is suddenly okay for Egyptians but not for Palestinians, or at least as of today, for Bahrainis.

    We also need to know how Obama will respond if the Palestinians take up the mantle of Cairo and march en masse to dismantle sections of the West Bank wall or the Erez crossing in Gaza, in defiance of both Israeli and Palestinian political commands.

    And the tests don’t get any easier. Bahrain is child’s play compared not merely to Yemen, which is a crucial base of Al-Qaeda (or so it is claimed) but even more so for Saudi Arabia, whose absolutely repressive regime is among the worst in almost every category possible, in direct proportion to its immense oil reserves and wealth.

    Democracy without hypocrisy

    One of the most fascinating and uplifting aspects of Tahrir square was the utter lack of hypocrisy within its confines. Authoritarian societies are by definition filled with double-talk, lies of various shades and a broader climate of hypocrisy which becomes the grease, however rancid, that allows the wheels of society to turn, even if they wind up spinning in their tracks for decades.

    In finally supporting the Tahrir experiment, President Obama was, in effect, pledging to end decades of American hypocrisy in its policies towards the Middle East and larger Muslim world.

    But in order to live up to this promise he will have to develop one set of policies for all the peoples and countries of the region. And doing that will demand an even more costly break with the past, putting old allies at arm’s length until they respect the rights of their peoples while embracing, however tentatively, groups that once seemed more easily characterised as, if not quite foes, then at least untrustworthy partners in securing American interests.

    Obama concluded his remarks celebrating the emergence of a new Egypt by saying that the revolution “forever more will remind us of the Egyptian people, of what they did, of the things that they stood for, and how they changed their country and in doing so changed the world.”

    Let’s hope in changing the world, Egyptians haven’t left the United States and other major powers too far behind.

    Mark LeVine is a professor of history at UC Irvine and senior visiting researcher at the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies at Lund University in Sweden. He has authored several books including Overthrowing Geography: Jaffa, Tel Aviv and the Struggle for Palestine (University of California Press, 2005) and An Impossible Peace: Israel/Palestine Since 1989 (Zed Books, 2009).

    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.


    Nog een wat sceptischer commentaar van Thomas vond der Dunk (De Volkskrant, http://opinie.volkskrant.nl/artikel/show/id/7857/De_problemen_in_Egypte_beginnen_pas_nu ):

    De problemen in Egypte beginnen pas nu

    Thomas von der Dunk, 14-02-2011 18:20
    De essentie van een succesvolle revolutie tegen een dictatuur is de overwinning van de eigen angst gebaseerd op hoop.

    Dat was zo in 1989 in Oost-Europa, dat was zo in 1979 in Iran. Rampzalig verloren oorlogen willen bij het ten val brengen van autocratieën ook wel eens helpen – Duitsland in 1918, Rusland in 1917 (en al eerder in 1905), Frankrijk in 1871 – maar in vredestijd is het moeilijker massa’s te bewegen in opstand te komen tegen een bewind dat, omdat het aan de grenzen rustig is, al zijn onderdrukkende kracht kan richten op het binnenland.

    Dan moet, omdat het alledaagse leven tenslotte minder dan tijdens een oorlog ontregeld wordt, de woede groter zijn, en tegelijk ook de verwachting dat verbetering haalbaar is – anders rest slechts berusting. Men moet veel meer te winnen (denken te) hebben dan te verliezen.

    Dat zagen we in Boekarest twintig jaar terug: Ceaucescu was uit een heel ander hout gesneden dan de bange bureaucraten in Praag of Oost-Berlijn – Ceaucescu liet schieten – maar tegelijk waren de Roemenen zoveel slechter af dat hen dat, toen bij de buren de gevangenismuren bezweken, niet veel meer kon schelen. Sommigen riepen het tijdens de demonstraties letterlijk tegen de alomtegenwoordige Securitate: schiet maar, wij hebben toch niets meer te verliezen. Datzelfde gevoel bestond bij de opstandelingen in Caïro.

    Boekarest 1989 – Caïro 2011: volgen er straks meer parallellen? In Roemenië werd de revolutie via een paleisrevolutie gekaapt, waarmee een deel van de oude machthebbers na opoffering van het boegbeeld – Ceaucescu reageerde even koppig als Mubarak – de macht hoopte te behouden. Het ontbreken van een georganiseerde oppositie droeg aan het aanvankelijke succes daarvan bij – en nog steeds is in Roemenië niet bepaald het corruptievrije democratische en rechtsstatelijke paradijs aangebroken.

    In Egypte heeft nu een hoogbejaarde oud-militair voor een jongbejaarde oud-militair plaats gemaakt. Overgangsregeringschef of blijvertje? Heeft de vorige dictator slechts voor een volgende plaats gemaakt? Voorlopig heeft er in politiek-maatschappelijk opzicht immers nog geen echte omwenteling plaats gevonden.

    Wat wil de legerleiding, die gezien haar enorme economische belangen alle baat heeft bij behoud van de maatschappelijke status quo, echt? Treedt zij in de voetsporen van de Anjerrevolutie in Portugal, waar sindsdien de democratie bloeit? Of in die van de Rozenrevolutie in Georgië, waar die bloem toch niet echt tot wasdom gekomen is?
    Voor de seculiere demonstranten op het Tahrirplein is er, gezien de van nature geringe democratische neigingen van een hiërarchisch georganiseerd militair apparaat, alle reden om de vinger aan de pols te houden en dus nog even met een omvangrijke afvaardiging in hun basiskamp te blijven.

    En wat zij vooral moeten doen, is zich snel ook politiek organiseren, om hun evidente achterstand op de Moslim Broederschap in te halen. Verovering van de staatkundige macht lukt en beklijft alleen door zelf ook een staatkundige macht te vormen. Er zijn in het verleden niet alleen door te veel doortastendheid revoluties ontspoord, zoals die van 1789 in Frankrijk, maar ook wel eens door een gebrek aan doortastendheid mislukt, zoals die van 1848 in Duitsland.

    Dat voert tot de vraag, waaruit de overeenkomsten met de gang van zaken bij onze eigen West- en Oosteuropese revoluties van de laatste twee eeuwen bestaan, en waarin de nu nog maar halfvoltooide – dus straks ofwel geheel voltooide dan wel toch mislukte – Egyptische daarvan verschilt.

    Het belangrijkste verschil met de negentiende eeuw bestaat ongetwijfeld uit de cruciale rol van de media, in tweeërlei opzicht: als bron van kennis over de opstand voor de opstandelingen zelf en voor de buitenwacht – een revolutie live op tv – én als bron van kennis voor de opstandelingen van de wereld van de buitenwacht.

    Wat het eerste betreft: hun alomtegenwoordigheid heeft het, net als in 1989, zonder twijfel veel minder makkelijk gemaakt voor de machthebbers om tot grof geweld over te gaan – niet voor niets poogden zij ook nu het Tahrirplein op zwart te zetten. Wat niet weet, wat niet deert, maar wat men wel ziet, zorgt voor verontwaardiging. Daarvoor is een dictatuur die afhankelijk is van westerse steun, zoals de Egyptische, noodgedwongen ook gevoeliger dan een dictatuur die op eigen benen staat, zoals de Chinese.

    En al laat zich, zoals Leni Riefenstahl ons heeft geleerd, met behulp van moderne media de macht ook zeker goed verheerlijken, waarbij een Leider goddelijke proporties aannemen kan, over het geheel bekeken is het risico van ongewilde debunking toch sterker. Het tv-scherm vergroot elke onhandige lichaamsbeweging of grimas van machthebbers genadeloos uit.

    De koningen die in de negentiende eeuw in Europa omwille van de democrati-sering ten val gebracht moesten worden beschikten nog over een sacrosanct aura, waaraan weinig hedendaagse dictatoren kunnen tippen.

    Dat zat hem enerzijds in het idee van een aangeboren hoge adellijke status in combinatie met de godssouvereiniteit, die hen in de ogen van de onderdanen letterlijk tot een aparte mensensoort maakte, waar nu ook de grootste tyran zich op ‘de wil van het volk’ beroept, en ideologisch ook beroepen moet.
    Als in Mozarts Zauberflöte – Uuweet, Mozart is tegenwoordig erg populair bij sommige verdedigers van de these dat de joods-christelijke cultuur van nature democratisch haaks op de islamitische staat – de natuurjongen Papageno zich aan Tamino voorstelt “als een mens”, en vervolgens aan Tamino vraagt wie híj is, antwoordt deze: “ik ben een prins”. Dat is kennelijk iets heel anders.

    Die laatste stelling viel, anderzijds, omdat fotografie en film nog niet waren uitgevonden, toen ook nog makkelijker vol te houden. U hoeft in de tweede helft van de negentiende eeuw alleen maar de officiële staatsie¬portretten naast de ook gemaakte familiaire foto’s te zetten. Zulke foto’s zijn in pre-fotoshoptijden onve¬biddelijk: daarop worden ook koningen meteen tot gewone burgermannetjes gereduceerd.

    Alleen van Wilhelm II wist de hoffotograaf nog iets te maken – maar tegelijk druipt toch de potsierlijkheid ervan af. Dat gevoel krijgt niemand bij een blik op de Napoleons van David of Ingres, of op Rigauds Lodewijk XIV. Menig machtig monach zag er in werkelijkheid niet uit – keizer Leopold I werd in 1665 door een Turkse bezoeker in zijn reisdagboek met een kameel in de dierentuin van Wenen vergeleken – en als hun onderdanen dat hadden geweten, was dat voor hun imago dodelijk geweest.

    Niet minder belangrijk dan in hun beïnvloeding van de revolutie door hun aanwezigheid, zijn de moderne media ook in een tweede opzicht, dat vrij weinig aandacht krijgt: als informatiebron voor de revolutionairen over de wereld om hen heen.

    Die wereld om hen heen vormt zonder twijfel een belangrijke stimulans om in verzet te komen. Wat wist de potentiële opstandeling van 1848 van de rest van de wereld? Weinig, vergeleken met nu. En wat in die rest van de wereld vormde een reden om met de eigen wereld geen genoegen meer te nemen? Ook vrij weinig, vergeleken met nu.

    Zowel dankzij de massamedia als dankzij de migratie weet men in de Arabische wereld van de vrijheid, de welvaart en de betrouwbaarheid van de overheid in het Westen. En ofschoon men tegelijk het Westen vanwege de steun aan de eigen dictatoren haat, vormen die vrijheid, welvaart en betrouwbaarheid, in het licht van de onderdrukking, armoede en corruptie thuis, een belangrijk ideologisch westers exportproduct.

    Miljoenen Arabieren hebben familie in Europa – en bij alle Wildersiaanse hetzes waaraan zij daar bloot staan, weten zij: zo kan het dus ook. En anders weten ze het wel via tv en internet. Dat concrete wenkende alternatief in de vorm van het reëel bestaande democratisme ontbrak anno 1848 in Europa nog nagenoeg geheel: het moest daar toen immers nog op de eigen autocraten veroverd worden. Dat scheelt wezenlijk, omdat het daarom thans veel minder makkelijk meer door potentaten onder het motto ‘ik of de chaos’ als een compleet utopisch hersenspinsel kan worden afgedaan.

    En tegelijk vormt juist deze grote stimulans nu ook het grote probleem voor de Arabische revoluties, omdat zij, net als al in Oost-Europa twintig jaar geleden het geval was, tot overspannen verwachtingen inzake de nabije toekomst leiden zal. Dat moet weer onvermijdelijk op een teleurstelling uitlopen, omdat die zo zichtbare achterstand weliswaar de revolutie teweeg heeft gebracht, maar tegelijk die achterstand – juist omdat die zo zichtbaar groot is – onmogelijk snel overbrugd zal kunnen worden.

    Ook als het nieuwe bewind in Caïro zich aan zijn belofte van eerlijke verkiezingen houdt, zal de verhoopte sociaal-economische vooruitgang tijd vergen. Vrijheid op papier valt met een pennestreek te realiseren – maar de welvaart, die men zichzelf op grond van die vrijheid belooft, vereist meer.

    De hamvraag is of de bevolking daarvoor het geduld zal hebben: een probleem dat ook bij de Duitse Eenwording speelde, toen veel Oostduitsers er min of meer op stonden dat de hen aangedane achterstand in één klap werd goedgemaakt. Hetzelfde zien wij in Zuid-Afrika, waar het gros van de zwarte bevolking ook na twintig jaar ANC-bewind nog steeds in armoede leeft: het einde van de Apartheid maakte geen einde aan de raciale ongelijkheid, maar schiep slechts de politieke voorwaarden om op termijn door economische ontwikkeling die raciale ongelijkheid uit te bannen.

    Dat is de psychologische handicap in de Arabische wereld: men wil het, anders dan onze eigen westerse revolutionairen van 1848 kennis hebbend van het westerse democratische welvaartsparadijs, na de verjaging van de eigen tyran meteen allemaal, en ook allemaal nu. Dat is tenslotte de essentie van de democratische belofte: welvaart voor iedereen.

    Wat vergeten wordt is dat het parlementaire systeem in Europa, daarin gelijke tred houdend met gestegen opleidingsniveau van de bevolking, slechts zeer geleidelijk is uitgebreid. Neem Nederland: uit angst voor de revolutie werd Willem II in 1848 in één nacht van conservatief wel liberaal – maar niet democraat. Het nieuwe parlementaire stelsel van Thorbecke bleef gebaseerd op censuskiesrecht – de democratie kwam pas in 1917.

    Bataafse Omwenteling
    Dat betekent dat, omdat de rechtsstaat zelf zelfs terugging tot de Bataafse Omwenteling van 1795, wij – en voor andere Europese landen geldt iets soortgelijks – een eeuw een soort verlichte parlementaire autocratie kenden, waarvan de historische rol in terugblik blijkt te zijn geweest om de huidige democratie voor te bereiden.

    Vanaf de Franse Revolutie waren in West-Europa alle burgers gelijk voor de wet – alleen wat er dan in die wet kwam te staan werd nog door een bovenlaag bepaald. Voor zo’n parlementaire autocratie is in de Arabische wereld geen tijd meer: die kans heeft de zichzelfverrijkende elite ginds, door voor zichzelf meteen – en daarmee noodzakelijkerwijs via beroving van de eigen bevoling – het westers welvaartsniveau op te eisen, verspeeld.
    Totale democratie was anno 1848 ook voor de meeste gewone Nederlanders ‘ondenkbaar’, en dus legden zij zich bij die bevoogding neer: algemeen kiesrecht lag voorbij hun geestelijke horizon. Dat is nu anders: de opstandelingen willen geen halve eeuw op politieke gelijkberechtiging wachten. Hun verwachtingen zijn inmiddels hoger dan de Toren van Babel, die, als bekend, door spraakverwarring en overmoed onvoltooid in elkaar is gestort.

    Het nieuwe bewind kan die verlangens van de bevolking onmogelijk negeren, maar er ook onmogelijk aan voldoen. Daarom beginnen de échte regeerproblemen in Egypte pas nu.


    Bahrain forces fire at protesters


    Troops open live fire around Pearl roundabout in Manama after nightfall, at least 50 wounded.

    Last Modified: 18 Feb 2011 18:37 GMT

    [WARNING: This video contains images that some viewers may find disturbing] 

    Shots were fired by soldiers around Pearl roundabout in Manama, the Bahraini capital, a day after police forcibly cleared a protest encampment from the traffic circle.

    The circumstances of the shooting after nightfall on Friday were not clear. Officials at the main Salmaniya hospital said at least 50 people were injured, some with gunshot wounds.


    Some doctors and medics on emergency medical teams were in tears as they tended to the wounded. X-rays showed bullets still lodged inside victims.

    “This is a war,” said Dr. Bassem Deif, an orthopedic surgeon examining people with bullet-shattered bones.

    Protesters described a chaotic scene of tear gas clouds, bullets coming from many directions and people slipping in pools of blood as they sought cover.

    Bahrain’s crown prince, meanwhile, called for calm, saying it was “time for dialogue, not fighting”.

    “The dialogue is always open and the reforms continue,” Crown Prince Sheikh Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa said on Bahrain TV.

     “We need to call for self-restraint from all sides, the armed forces, security men and citizens,” he said. “I urge you, there should be calm. Now is time for calm.”

    Jalal Firooz, of the Wefaq bloc that resigned from parliament on Thursday, said demonstrators had been elsewhere in the city, marking the death of a protester killed earlier this week. The demonstrators then made for the roundabout, where army troops are deployed.

    A doctor of Salmaniya hospital told Al Jazeera that the hospital is full of severely injured people after the latest shootings.

    “We need help! Our staff is entirely overwhelmed. They are shooting at people’s heads. Not at the legs. People are having their brains blown out,”  a distraught Dr Ghassan said, describing the chaos at the hospital as something close to a war zone.

    Our online producer interviews a protester at a funeral in Sitra 

    He said the hospital was running short of blood and appealed for help to get more supplies. Police had no immediate comment.

    An Associated Press cameraman saw army units shooting anti-aircraft weapons, fitted on top of armored personnel carriers, above the protesters in apparent warning shots and attempts to drive them back from security cordons about 200 meters from the roundabout.

    One marcher claimed live ammunition was used against protesters.

    “People started running in all directions and bullets were flying,” said Ali al-Haji, a 27-year-old bank clerk. “I saw people getting shot in the legs, chest and one man was bleeding from his head.”

    In the past, security forces had mostly used rubber bullets.

    Witnesses said about 20 police cars had driven toward the roundabout after the initial shooting.

    Earlier, troops backed by tanks had locked down Manama and announced a ban on public gatherings. Tanks and armoured personnel carriers were patrolling the streets of Manama and checkpoints set up.

    Tents at Manama’s Pearl Roundabout were cleared of protesters by riot police in a raid on Thursday [Reuters]

    Riot police using clubs and tear gas broke up a crowd of protesters in the city’s financial district in a pre-dawn swoop on Thursday, killing at least four people and injuring more than 200.

    Al Jazeera’s correspondent, who cannot be named for security reasons, reported from Manama on Friday that thousands of people observed the funerals of those killed in the police raid on the protesters’ tents in the city’s Pearl Roundabout area.

    Many of those present chanted slogans against Bahrain’s ruling Al Khalifa family. They said they were both grief-stricken and angry at the heavy-handedness of the police, and that they were demanding that the international community take notice of what they call the brutality of the security forces.

    As Friday prayers commenced, Sheikh Issa Qassem, a prominent Bahraini Shia Muslim religious leader, delivering his sermon in a northwestern village, described Thursday’s violence as a “massacre”.

    Our correspondent reported that Qassem said the government was attempting to create a “sectarian divide” between Sunnis and Shias. He advocated peaceful protests, saying “violence is the way of the government”, and that protesters should not espouse violent actions.

    The crowd at the funerals in Sitra were not as large as those seen during previous funerals, our correspondent reported.

    He said this was because of a heavy security presence on the streets, with police and army closing off roads across the country.

    No security forces personnel were reported to be present at Sitra on Friday, though a helicopter was seen hovering over the funeral procession.

    “Many of those who in the past came out [to protests] … are afraid. They’re frightened and they don’t want to turn up at a protest like this because they are fearful for their lives,” he said, citing an incident on February 15 in Manama, when at least one person was killed when police fired on a funeral procession.

    Country profile: Bahrain 

    Our correspondent further said that while it was “almost impossible” to confirm a figure for those who had gone missing during Thursdsay’s crackdown, one opposition politician put the number at 70.

    Members of the opposition Al Wefaq party have withdrawn from the country’s parliament. The party says MPs will not rejoin if the government continues to disallow protests.

    Meanwhile, Bahraini state television showed pictures of a pro-government rally, attended by hundreds, taking place in Manama, despite the ban on public gatherings.

    Just hours after Thursday’s deadly police action, the military announced the ban, saying on state TV that it had “key parts” of Manama under its control.

    Khalid Al Khalifa, Bahrain’s foreign minister, justified the Pearl roundabout raid as necessary because the demonstrators were “polarising the country” and pushing it to the “brink of the sectarian abyss”.

    Speaking after meeting with his Gulf counterparts, he said the violence was “regrettable”.

    Two people had died in police firing on protesters prior to Thursday’s deadly police raid. Al Jazeera’s correspondent said that hospitals had been full of injured people after police raid, with the injured including nurses and doctors who had rushed to attend to the wounded.

    After several days of holding back, Bahrain’s Sunni Arab rulers unleashed a heavy crackdown, trying to stamp out the first anti-government upheaval to reach the Arab states of the Gulf since the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt.

    During the assault at the Pearl roundabout, police tore down the protesters’ tents, beating men and women inside and blasting some with shotgun sprays of bird-shot.

    The interior ministry claims that protesters were carrying swords, knives and other bladed instruments.

    The pre-dawn raid was a sign of how deeply the island’s Sunni monarchy  fears the repercussions of a prolonged wave of protests, led by members of the country’s Shia majority but also joined by growing numbers of discontented Sunnis.

    UK to review arms sale

    Bahrain is a pillar of US military framework in the region: it hosts the US navy’s Fifth Fleet, which the US sees as a critical counterbalance to Iran’s military power.

    Bahrain’s rulers and their Sunni Arab allies depict any sign of unrest among their Shia Muslim populations as a move by neighbouring Shia-majority Iran to expand its clout in the region.

    The army would take every measure necessary to preserve security, the interior ministry said.

    Against this backdrop of continued unrest, Britain said on Thursday that it was reviewing decisions to export arms to Bahrain.

    “In light of events we are today formally reviewing recent licencing decisions for exports to Bahrain,” Alistair Burt, a junior foreign minister with responsibility for the Middle East, said.

    He cautioned that Britain would “urgently revoke licences if we judge that they are no longer in line with the criteria” used for the export of weapons.

    In a statement, Burt said a range of licences had been approved for Bahrain in the last nine months, including two for 250 tear gas cartridges for the Bahrain Defence Force and National Security Agency “for trial/evaluation purposes”.

    The protesters’ demands have two main objectives: force the Sunni monarchy to give up its control over high-level government posts and all critical decisions, and address deep grievances held by the country’s Shias, who make up 70 per cent of Bahrain’s 500,000 citizens.

    But the community claims its faces systematic discrimination and poverty and is effectively blocked from key roles in public service and the military.


    Ondertussen, het hete hangijzer Israël/Palestina. Zie het bericht hieronder. Voor wie zich nog steeds afvraagt waarom er in de Arabische wereld zoveel wrevel bestaat tegen de VS, al hebben ze hun officiële vriendschap vaak afgekocht bij de diverse Mubaraks (waardoor er ook weer ‘ergernis’ bij de gewone bevolking ontstaat): precies hierom. Zie hieronder:


    US vetoes UN vote on settlements


    Washington blocks resolution condemning Israeli buildings on Palestinian land as illegal and calling for quick halt.

    Last Modified: 18 Feb 2011 22:19 GMT
    Palestinians say building flouts an internationally-backed peace plan that allows them to create a state [GALLO/GETTY] 

    The United States vetoed a UN resolution Friday that would have condemned Israeli settlements as “illegal” and called for an immediate halt to all settlement building.

    All 14 other Security Council members voted in favour of the resolution.

    British Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant, speaking on behalf of his country, France and Germany, condemned Israeli settlements in the West Bank. “They are illegal under international law,” he said.

    He added that the European Union’s three biggest nations hope that an independent state of Palestine will join the United Nations as a new member state by September 2011.

    The Obama administration’s veto is certain to anger Arab countries and Palestinian supporters around the world. An abstention would have angered the Israelis, the closest US ally in the region, as well as Democratic and Republican supporters of Israel in the American Congress.

    Washington says it opposes settlements in principal, but claims that the UN Security Council is not the appropriate venue for resolving the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    US ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice told council members that the veto “should not be misunderstood to mean we support settlement activity.

    “While we agree with our fellow council members and indeed with the wider world about the folly and illegitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, we think it unwise for this council to attempt to resolve the core issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians,” she said.

    Pressure to drop resolution

    Earlier, the Obama administration has exerted pressure on the Palestinian Authority to drop the UN resolution in exchange for other measures.

    Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, has refused Washington’s request to withdraw a UN Security Council resolution demanding Israel to freeze settlement expansion on occupied Palestinian land.

    The decision was made unanimously by the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s executive and the central committee of Abbas’s Fatah movement on Friday, at a meeting to discuss US President Barack Obama’s appeal to Abbas by telephone a day earlier.

    “The Palestinian leadership has decided to proceed to the UN Security Council, to pressure Israel to halt settlement activities. The decision was taken despite American pressure,” said Wasel Abu Yousef, a PLO executive member.

    Obama, who had said Israeli settlements in territories it captured in a 1967 war are illegal and unhelpful to the peace process, says the resolution could shatter hopes of reviving the stalled talks.

    In a 50-minute phone call on Thursday, he asked Abbas to drop the resolution and settle for a non-binding statement condemning settlement expansion, Palestinian officials said. 

    ‘Goldstone 2’

    “Caving in to American pressure and withdrawing the resolution will constitute Goldstone 2,” said a Palestinian official, speaking on terms of anonymity before the meeting.

    He was referring to the wave of protest in October 2009 accusing Abbas of caving in to US pressure by agreeing not to submit for adoption a UN report that accused Israel and Hamas of war crimes during the invasion of Gaza two years ago.

    Abbas maintains he insisted on submitting the report. A second Palestinian official, speaking before the decision was formalised, said it would be “a political catastrophe if we withdraw this resolution”.

    “People would take to the streets and would topple the president,” he said, noting the wave of protest in the Arab world that swept out the Egyptian and Tunisian presidents.

    The Palestinians say continued building flouts the internationally-backed peace plan that will permit them to create a viable, contiguous state on the 1967 land, after a treaty with Israel to end its occupation and 62 years of conflict.

    Israel says this is an excuse for avoiding peace talks and a precondition never demanded before during 17 years of negotiations, which has so far produced no agreement.

    The diplomatic standoff is complicated by the effects of Middle East turmoil on the Arab League, whose members backed the resolution. Egypt, a dominant member, and Tunisia are preoccupied with their transitions from deposed autocracies, and protests are flaring in Libya, Yemen and Bahrain.

    Washington is trying to revive peace talks stalled since September over Israel’s refusal to extend a moratorium on settlement building and Abbas’s refusal to negotiate further until the Israelis freeze the illegal buildings.

    ‘Nothing to lose’

    Obama initially pressured Israel to maintain the moratorium only to relent in the run-up to the 2010 US mid-term elections to avoid, some analysts said, alienating key voters.

    Instead of the resolution, Obama told Abbas he would back a fact-finding visit by a delegation of the Security Council to the occupied territories.

    One PLO official said the leadership was determined not to cave in “even if our decision leads to a diplomatic crisis with the Americans”, adding: “Now we have nothing to lose.”

    Kristin Saloomey, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in New York, said that the US has been doing everything it can to stop this vote from happening, including incentives and threats.

    “Apparently Obama threatened [on the phone to Abbas] that there would be repercussions if this vote actually came to the floor of the UN Security Council,” she said.

    “Today secretary of state, Hilary Clinton, called president Abbas [to put on more pressure] but none of this is getting through to the Palestinians.

    “Obama is facing intense domestic pressure not to support the vote. The US is in a tough position, they know that a veto is going to make them look very bad in the Arab world … and also the rest of the world is really in support of this resolution.

    “All of the Security Council members are on the record saying they are going to vote for this resolution including US allies”.

    Since 2000, 14 Security Council resolutions have been vetoed by one or more of the five permanent members — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States. Of those, 10 were US vetoes, nine of them related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    Al Jazeera and agencies

    Two-state solution: A postmortem

    In the wake of the Palestine Papers and the Egyptian uprising the ‘peace process’ as we know it is dead.
    Sandy Tolan Last Modified: 18 Feb 2011 14:10 GMT
    The US’ tone-deaf approach to Palestinian realities is a key reason for the failure of the ‘peace process’ [GALLO/GETTY] 

    Among the time-honoured myths in the long tragedy of Israel and Palestine is “the deal that almost was”. The latest entry, what we might call the “near deal of 2008,” comes from Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli prime minister, chronicled in excerpts from his forthcoming memoir and feverishly promoted in The New York Times as “the Israel peace plan that almost was and still could be”.
    Clearly, the dwindling number of promoters of the two-state solution are in a post-Cairo, post-Palestine Papers attempt to keep afloat what is, in the end, a sinking ship: A bad deal that even the weak Palestinian negotiating team would not accept. “Israel has an overwhelming interest in going the extra mile,” a nervous Thomas Friedman wrote as protestors filled Tahrir Square, warning: “There is a huge storm coming, Israel. Get out of the way.” 
    At the heart of the effort to salvage the busted remnants of Oslo is the “near deal of 2008”.  “We were very close, more than ever before,” Olmert writes in his memoirs. 
    But as they say in a famous TV ad in the US: “Not exactly.”

    Old myths die hard
    Like other such fictions – chief among them “Israel’s generous offer” at Camp David in 2000 – this one is not entirely without substance. As the Palestine Papers show, the two sides did agree on various security arrangements, land swaps and some principles of the right of return, much to the alarm of many Palestinians. Just as significantly, Palestinian negotiators agreed to allow Israel to annex major settlement blocs in East Jerusalem – a fact that, in the wake of the document dump, is eroding what is left of Abbas’ credibility among his own people. (As if to underscore that point, chief negotiator Saeb Erekat resigned last week in disgrace, after revelations that the Palestine Papers were leaked from his very own office.)
    Yet despite the 2008 concessions, the documents also show that the negotiations did not bring the sides close to a deal. Rather, they revealed red lines that signal the end of the peace process as we know it, and – especially after Cairo – the death of the two-state solution. Nowhere is this more clear than in the discussions over two huge settlement blocs, where Israel, backed by an arm-twisting US, undermined its last chance for a two-state deal.
    In 1993, at the beginning of the Oslo “peace process,” 109,000 Israeli settlers lived on West Bank Palestinian land, not including East Jerusalem. That number has now nearly tripled. One of the settlements, Ariel, juts well into the West Bank, nearly half the way to Jordan from the Mediterranean coast, and is protected by Israel’s separation barrier. Ariel, with nearly 20,000 people, promotes itself as the aspiring “capital of Samaria” with its own industrial park and even a university.

    “There is no Israeli leader who will sign an agreement that does not include Ariel,” Tzipi Livni, Olmert’s foreign minister, told Palestinian negotiators in April 2008.

     “And there is no Palestinian leader who will sign an agreement that includes Ariel,” negotiator Ahmad Qurei replied. Qurei was not just posturing. Ariel bifurcates the Palestinian district of Salfit and helps make a mockery of US diplomats’ stated goal of a “viable and contiguous” Palestinian state.

    Another red line is Ma’ale Adumim. Despite the significant concessions in East Jerusalem – which Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said amounted to “the biggest Yerushalayim in Jewish history” – the Palestinians see Ma’ale Adumim as a wedge between East Jerusalem and the West Bank. For them, the settlement is another barrier to a contiguous land base on which to build their state. For Israelis, Ma’ale Adumim, founded with the support of then defence minister Shimon Peres in 1975 and now a “city” of more than 34,000 settlers, is untouchable.
    In theory, the self-described “honest broker,” the US, could have tried to bridge the differences. But that is not what Condoleezza Rice, the then US secretary of state, had in mind when she leaned on the weak Palestinian delegation in a July 2008 meeting in Jerusalem:
    “I don’t think that any Israeli leader is going to cede Ma’ale Adumim,” she told Qurei.
    “Or any Palestinian leader,” Qurei replied.
    “Then you won’t have a state!” Rice declared.

    On the wrong side of history
    The US has long been hypersensitive to Israeli domestic political considerations while ignoring those of the Palestinians and the broader Arab and Muslim worlds. In 2000, Yasser Arafat turned down Israel’s “generous offer,” refusing to agree to a “sovereign presidential compound” in the Old City – essentially, a golden cage near the Muslim holy sites. Arafat understood that neither Palestinians nor Muslims worldwide would agree to such limited Palestinian sovereignty over the Haram Al Sharif, considered the third holiest site in Islam. “If anyone imagines that I might sign away Jerusalem, he is mistaken,” Arafat told Bill Clinton, the then US president, at Camp David. “You have lost many chances,” Clinton responded. “You won’t have a Palestinian state …. You will be alone in the region.”
    The US’ tone-deaf approach to Palestinian realities is a central reason for the failure of the “peace process”. Rice suggested in a June 2008 meeting that one way to help solve the entrenched and emotional issue of right of return would be to ship refugees to South America. Barack Obama’s team has not fared much better. In 2009, the US pressured the Palestinians to stall the release of the UN’s Goldstone Report calling for an investigation into Israeli war crimes in Gaza. This was precisely the opposite of what the Palestinian public fervently wanted. The US carrot: More favourable negotiating terms for the Palestinian Authority (PA).
    But the US, so accustomed to dealing with Arab strongmen like Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and Tunisia’s Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, seems to have forgotten that the weak Palestinian negotiators were in no position to ignore, much less dictate to, their people. Any peace deal would have been put to a referendum among politically-aware Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. A deal as unfavourable as that the US and Israel promoted in 2008 would have been far from a sure thing. Olmert recalls telling Abbas: “Take the pen and sign now. You’ll never get an offer that is more fair or more just.” But it was the Israelis, and the US, who missed their chance.
    In the days just before Egyptians liberated themselves, Obama tried to shore up some of the US credibility squandered since his 2009 Cairo speech by supporting the calls for democracy. But for many Palestinians, US or PA credibility is no longer relevant. In the West Bank, people regard US pronouncements with sharply declining interest. And it was the PA, in the midst of the euphoric struggle of its neighbours, that placed itself firmly on the wrong side of history by banning demonstrations in solidarity with the Egyptian and Tunisian people. “The policy,” said a PA security spokesman “is non-interference in the internal affairs of Arab or foreign countries.”
    You could not find a more apt symbol of a corroded and irrelevant Palestinian regime, shockingly out of touch with its people and the jubilation in Tahrir Square, and structurally unable to seize the moment. Now, with the PA’s negotiations team in disarray, it is hard to imagine Palestinians in the West Bank again putting their trust in the “authority,” or in the wreckage of an Oslo process tied to a Middle Eastern order that no longer exists.
    Even in their last-ditch attempts to forge a two-state deal, beleaguered Palestinian negotiators seemed aware that it was slipping away. “In light of these circumstances and these unrealistic propositions,” Qurei told Livni in frustration in April 2008, “I see that the only solution is a bi-national state where Muslims, Christians and Jews live together”.

    Sandy Tolan is an associate professor at the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at USC, and the author of The Lemon Tree: An Arab, a Jew, and the Heart of the Middle East.
    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy


    US doubling down on Mideast horses


    People in Palestine will trust US stewardship once again if Obama applies consistent political standards to PA leaders.

    Fadi Elsalameen Last Modified: 07 Feb 2011 14:11 GMT
    A Palestinian man burns the US flag during a protest in support for Egyptian demonstrators in Ramallah [Reuters] 

    A wave of popular uprisings in the Middle East is sending a clear message to those in power − and those who aspire to be in power − in the Arab world. Together with the release of several sets of leaked secret documents, they are making it clear that one should never bet on America’s horse.

    “America’s horse” is the Arab leader who is backed by the United States and given a license to rule however he deems appropriate, as long as he doesn’t threaten Israel’s security or other American interests in the region. In return, he is allowed to abuse human rights and deny his people economic and political rights. With America’s sanction, and under the banner of fighting Islamic fundamentalism, he can crush any opposition that arises.

    All through the 10 years I spent as a student in the US, I dreamed of returning to Palestine and contributing to a future Palestinian state. Coming from a modest background in Hebron and having had the privilege of an education at some of the best universities in America, I felt an obligation to help my people, always mindful that I had been more fortunate than friends and siblings who stayed behind.

    Yet, from the moment I returned last September, I found a wall higher than the Israeli separation barrier blocking me from helping my Palestinian brothers and sisters. That wall was made up of America’s Palestinian horses: Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad and President Mahmoud Abbas.

    The moment I began publicly raising objections to the police state being formed in the West Bank, and the fear instilled in people who might dare to criticize the government, Fayyad’s intelligence services started harassing me, to the point where I no longer felt safe in the West Bank. Even now that I have returned to the US, I still receive threatening phone calls for my criticism of Fayyad and Abbas. Several friends back home were arrested or called in for questioning by Palestinian intelligence officials over Facebook and Twitter activities that criticize Fayyad and Abbas.

    Disheartening reforms

    What you read in newspapers about Fayyad’s technocracy based on interviews with him does not match what exists on the ground. I am guilty of being one of those who wrongly praised Fayyad’s work. In his office, Fayyad offers a very compelling theoretical approach to state-building, but implementation on the ground couldn’t be farther from the principles of democracy, transparency, freedom and accountability. America’s horses, Fayyad and Abbas, I am sorry to say, have created an authoritarian police state that is actively suppressing people’s dissatisfaction with them.

    Many before me have faced this same reality. In fact, what you see today in Palestine and in the Arab world in general is a reaction to the repressive policies of American horses against educated populations yearning for reform.

    The Al Jazeera-Guardian Palestine Papers leak did not come about because two disgruntled former employees of the PA were encouraged by alleged CIA and MI6 operatives, as was asserted by Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat. On the contrary, it was the consequence of years of dissatisfaction among smart, able, Western-educated Palestinians who gave up lucrative salaries in the US to return to their homeland and become involved in the Palestinian peace process and in building the institutions of the future state.

    But their hard work and opinions were completely ignored by the PA’s leadership. As a result, many of them stopped working for the PA and, inspired by WikiLeaks, felt compelled to reach out to networks like Al Jazeera to shed light on the serious leadership flaws Abbas and his aides suffer.

    Leadership discredited

    There will be more leaks and further undermining of what remains of the PA’s credibility until there is a serious change in the decision-making process, so that it is more inclusive and representative of the people.

    The US and Western countries must reconsider their approach toward the regimes of the Middle East. It will no longer suffice for America’s horse to use the banner of moderation and Western values, and the need to fight Islamists, to crush all opposition. After all, everyone in the Arab world knows that this is not how America chooses its own leaders and treats its own political opposition.

    This is a crucial moment for the US, which needs to think long and hard about its interests in the region, through the prism of the wants and needs of the Arab masses, not by gambling and hedging bets on this or that American horse. The more time the US and Israel waste by not supporting the young Arab voices calling for political reform, the less likely they will be to find an ally in these revolutionaries once they take over their own destiny.

    The lesson to be learned is that America’s horse can’t win the race. Has President Obama learned this lesson? We will know by the way he handles Egypt − and Palestine − and by what message he sends to the Arab masses yearning for political freedom. Until then, all bets are off.

    This article originally appeared in Haaretz.

    Fadi Elsalameen is a fellow with the New America Foundation’s American Strategy Program. He is also director general of the Palestine Note and Diwan Palestine, internet newspapers in English and Arabic.

    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.


    Topics in this article



    Jordan protest turns violent


    Anti-government protests become routine on Fridays in Jordan since popular uprisings swept Egypt and Tunisia.

    Last Modified: 18 Feb 2011 23:11 GMT
    Jordan’s king rules by decree and has the power to appoint and dismiss Cabinets and parliament if he chooses [AFP]

    At least eight people have been injured in clashes that broke out in Jordan’s capital between government supporters and opponents at a protest calling for more freedom and lower food prices.

    The protest was the seventh straight Friday that Jordanians took to the streets demanding constitutional reform and more say in decision-making.

    Jordan’s king enjoys absolute powers, ruling by decree: He can appoint and dismiss cabinet and parliament whenever at anytime.

    Amani Ghoul, a teacher and member of the movement that organised the protests insisted the protests will continue until their demands are met.

    “We want a complete overhaul of the political system, including the constitution, the parliament dissolved and new free and fair elections held,” she said.

    Pro-government supporters

    At least 200 government supporters trailed the anti-government protesters, chanting: “Our blood and souls, we sacrifice for you Abu Hussein” – a reference to Jordan’s King Abdullah II before clashing with the opposition march.

    Tareq Kmeil, a student at the protest, said: “They beat us with batons, pipes and hurl rocks at us. We tried to defend ourselves, to beat them back.”

    He said at least eight people suffered fractures to the skull, arms or legs.

    “Police didn’t do anything to protect us. They just stood on the side watching us getting beaten,” Kmeil said.

    Police spokesmen were not immediately available for comment.

    Some pro-government supporters denounced Al-Jazeera, blaming it for fomenting unrest across the Arab world.

    “Al-Jazeera is behind every sickness,” read some of their signs.

    Walid al-Khatib, a Bedouin Sheikh, joined at least 300 pro-government supporters in the western town of Theiban, saying he had to come out to profess his support for the king and country.

    “I love King Abdullah and the stability of Jordan. I don’t want this to ever change,” he said.

    But not everyone is upbeat about the government.

    Akhram Ismail, 50, a government employee of 17 years who earns a meagre $140 per month, said his salary was not enough to feed his six children and wants to see changes to aid the poor.

    Ismail vowed that Jordan would not see an end to the protests anytime soon.

    “The government recently promised civil servants a pay raise of $28, while politicians play with millions,” he said.






    Gaddafi’s turbulent US relations


    Libya has become a key player despite decades-long image of political pariah.

    Rob Reynolds Last Modified: 03 Sep 2009 10:30 GMT

    Libya marks on September 1 the 40th anniversary of the coup that brought Gaddafi to power [AFP]


    A weedy, overgrown backyard in Englewood, New Jersey seemed likely for a time last week to become the scene of the latest flashpoint in Libyan-US relations.

    Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, is planning his first visit to the US since he seized power in a military coup 40 years ago. He is set to address the yearly UN General Assembly in September.

    Now, wherever the long-time Libyan leader goes, he likes to take a little bit of Libya with him – in the form of a huge, air-conditioned Bedouin-style tent. He pitched his pavilion in the Kremlin during a visit to Moscow. In Rome, the tent sat prominently in a public park.

    Gaddafi initially planned to set up camp in Manhattan’s Central Park, but Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, said no dice.  So a squadron of gardeners and construction workers descended on the dilapidated estate of Libya’s UN ambassador in lovely Englewood, a suburb of 30,000 people with a large Orthodox Jewish community.

    You can guess what happened next. Protests were organised. Petitions were passed around. Lawsuits flew hither and yon.

    Perhaps unexpectedly, Gaddafi backed down. There will be no tent party in Englewood, and the Colonel will stick to Manhattan on his visit.

    Intense mutual enmity

    In depth

     Profile: Abdel Basset al-Megrahi
     Libyans hail al-Megrahi return
     Bomber’s homecoming slammed
     Release prompts anger and relief
      Video: Al-Megrahi’s release sparks row
      Video: Al-Megrahi speaks out
      Video: Opinions divided over Lockerbie appeal
     Video: Lockerbie remembered
     Al-Megrahi statement in full


    If only all of the disputes between Libya and the US had ended so peacefully. It has been a relationship marked almost from the very start by intense mutual enmity, and both countries have committed many acts of violence toward one another over the decades. 

    Only in very recent years, in a remarkable turnaround, have Libya and the US learnt to live with one another.

    Shortly after seizing power, Gaddafi expelled foreign military forces from his country, forcing the US to shut down its Wheelus Air Force Base.

    The Libyan leader quickly became a dabbler and financier in all sorts of radicalism, giving money, training and safe havens to a diverse array of revolutionaries including hard-line Palestinian revolutionary groups like George Habash’s Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PLFP) and the Abu Nidal faction.

    Gaddafi provided support to Colombia’s M-19 guerrillas, armed Chilean leftist groups, the Irish Republican Army, and a variety of African armed movements.

    He offered a seaside villa to Sirhan Sirhan, the Palestinian-born assassin of US Senator Robert Kennedy, should he ever be paroled from his life sentence in a California prison.

    He infuriated Arab leaders ranging from Yassir Arafat to Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd, whom he once referred to as a pig.

    ‘Sponsor of terrorism’

    In 1999, Libya handed over two agents to the Lockerbie bombing investigation [AFP] 

    In 1979, an angry mob burned down the US Embassy in Tripoli. Soon thereafter the US severed diplomatic ties and designated Libya a “state sponsor of terrorism” and enforced economic sanctions on the African state. 

    But within a few years, shooting and bombing replaced diplomatic slaps and name calling.

    In 1981, two Libyan warplanes fired on US navy jets in the Gulf of Sidra, an area claimed as territorial waters by Libya. The Libyan planes were shot down.

    The Libyan planes were shot down. Five years later, in a similar incident, the US claimed Libya targeted its aircraft patrolling the Gulf of Sidra. US naval forces sank two Libyan patrol boats and bombed a Libyan missile base.

    In April 1986, a bomb exploded in the La Belle discotheque in West Berlin, killing three people including two US military personnel. Evidence of Libyan involvement was discovered and years later a Libyan diplomat was convicted of the killings.

    Ronald Reagan, the then-US president, responded by ordering an air strike on Tripoli and Benghazi. One of the targets was Gaddafi’s residential compound. The Colonel escaped but his adopted 15-month-old daughter was killed.

    Lockerbie bombing

    Many conspiracy theories have been expounded about who was really responsible for the Lockerbie bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988.

    Some contend it was the work of a Palestinian faction, others point to Iran, saying it no coincidence that the Lockerbie explosion came five months after an Iran Air flight was shot down by the US warship Vincennes in the Gulf, killing 290.

    The facts are, however, that in 1999 Libya handed over two intelligence agents who were tried in a special Scottish court, and in 2003 admitted a measure of responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing that killed 270 people.

    Whether Libya made a “false confession” in order to get out from under crippling sanctions, as some contend, may or may not be known some day. UN sanctions were lifted in 2003, although some unilateral US sanctions remained in place.

    George Bush, the former US president, believed his invasion of Iraq served as a warning to Libya, forcing it to bring its behaviour back to within international norms.

    In December 2003, Gaddafi announced Libya was scrapping its programme to build weapons of mass destruction.

    A subsequent UN inspection team found no evidence Libya was working on nuclear arms. Back-channel negotiations between the US, UK and Libya had reportedly been underway since 2002.

    In 2004, The US and Libya resumed diplomatic relations, and the US dropped sanctions. In 2006 the US removed Libya from its list of ‘state sponsors of terrorism’.

    By 2008, Gaddafi had behaved himself so admirably in the eyes of the US that he was treated to a visit by Condoleezza Rice, the redoubtable US secretary of state .

    The final touch came in July of this year when Gaddafi, swathed in multiple multicoloured patterned silk robes, shawls and an gold-embroidered red pillbox hat, shook hands with Barack Obama, the US president, at a multinational summit in Italy.

    While Libya has reoriented its foreign policy and abandoned its overt support for radicals of all stripes, little has changed to make life freer and more democratic for the Libyan people.

    The Gaddafi dynasty

    The US has objected to Gaddafi, left, giving al-Megrahi, right, a hero’s welcome [AFP]  

    Gaddafi rules with the help of an insidious and pervasive mukhabarat, or secret police, apparatus. 

    Far from beginning to transition his country toward democratic institutions, the flamboyant Colonel has apparently taken his cue from Syria and North Korea in preparing for a dynastic succession that would put his son Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi in charge.

    The rapturous ceremony afforded to the cancer-stricken Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset al-Megrahi on his return to Tripoli after release from Scotland on “compassionate” grounds has somewhat spoilt the newly chummy relationship.

    Video of the Libyan dictator hugging the convicted Lockerbie bomber did not go down well with the public, or with the US Congress. Obama called the scene “highly  objectionable”.

    It does seem hypocritical of Obama and Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, to appear more upset about al-Megrahi’s welcome-home party than they are over the baffling decision by Scotland’s not-quite-ready-for-prime-time Scottish National Party government to set him free in the first place.

    And new evidence has emerged, in the form of hitherto secret memorandums, that strongly suggests the UK government leaned on Edinburgh to release Megrahi in order to (surprise!) grease a lucrative oil deal with Tripoli.

    The Englewood uproar can be seen as a metaphor for how the West now treats Gaddafi. Having lots of Libyan oil on the market certainly is nice, and Western oil companies love having another country to exploit.

    To sanitise a pungent saying favoured by President Lyndon Johnson, it’s better to have Gaddafi inside the tent spitting out, than outside the tent spitting in.

    But like the citizens of Englewood, the US certainly doesn’t want Gaddafi setting up his tent in its backyard.

    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.




    Protesters retake Bahrain square


    Anti-government protesters back in Pearl roundabout after troops and police withdraw from protest site in capital.

    Last Modified: 19 Feb 2011 14:24 GMT
                               [WARNING: This video contains images that some viewers may find disturbing]Thousands of anti-government protesters have reoccupied their former stronghold in the capital, Manama, after troops and riot police retreated from the Pearl roundabout in the centre of the city.The cheering protesters carrying Bahraini flags, flowers and signs that said “Peaceful, peaceful” marched
    to the square on Saturday. They chanted, “We are victorious”.Protesters kissed the ground in joy and took pictures of about 60 police vehicles leaving the area.Sheikh Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, the crown prince, had earlier in the day ordered the military to withdraw, saying that the police would now be responsible for enforcing order, the Bahrain News Agency reported.Soon after the crown prince’s directive, protesters had attempted to stream back to the roundabout, but were beaten back by the police. According to the Reuters news agency, about 80 protesters were taken to a hospital after being hit by rubber bullets or teargas.The protesters, however, were successful in the next attempt, when the riot police withdrew from the traffic circle as well.Symbolic centre

    The Pearl roundabout, the symbolic centre of the protesters’ uprising, had been the scene of heavy-handed crackdown. Several demonstrators were killed and many injured as security forces cleared the area of protesters in a pre-dawn attack on Thursday morning.It was the scene of shootings again on Friday night when troops opened fire on protesters with live rounds.An Al Jazeera correspondent in Bahrain, who we cannot name for security reasons, said the reoccupation of the roundabout by the protesters left one to wonder what the violence during the previous days was all about. “It makes one ask what those deaths were for,” he said.

    The withdrawal of the troops and police from the roundabout appeared to be concessions extended by the authorities to the protesters.

    ‘Time for dialogue’

    The opposition, In rejecting a call from the crown prince for a dialogue, had earlier said the government must resign and the army should be withdrawn before any talks with the ruling family can begin.

    Ibrahim Mattar, a member of the Wefaq bloc which quit parliament on Thursday, said his party did not believe there was a “serious will for dialogue because the military is in the streets”.

    Sheikh Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa, the King of Bahrain, had earlier asked the crown prince, to start a national dialogue “with all parties”.

    The tiny kingdom has been in upheaval with the Shia majority taking to the streets in thousands against the Sunni rulers.
    Meanwhile, the General Union of Bahraini Workers has called a strike from Sunday, according to a member of the workers union at national flag carrier Gulf Air.

    Also on Saturday, Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, called for the dialogue process to begin “without delay”. She also said that she was “deeply concerned” by reports of the use of violence by security forces, and called on all sides to show “restraint”.

    Speaking on state television on Friday evening, the crown prince called for calm, saying it was “time for dialogue, not fighting”.
    “The dialogue is always open and the reforms continue,” Sheikh Hamad al-Khalifa said on Bahrain TV.
    “We need to call for self-restraint from all sides, the armed forces, security men and citizens,” he said. “I urge you, there should be calm. Now is time for calm.”

    But protesters have so far shown little appetite to heed his calls, with anger sweeping the streets following the shootings by security forces.

    US condemns violence

    Barack Obama, the US president, discussed the situation with King Al Khalifa of Bahrain in a telephone calln on Friday, asking him to hold those responsible for the violence accountable.

    He said in a statement that Bahrain must respect the “universal rights'” of its people and embrace “meaningful reform”.
    “I am deeply concerned about reports of violence in Bahrain, Libya and Yemen.

    The United States condemns the use of violence by governments against peaceful protesters in those countries and wherever else it may occur,” he said.

    “The United States urges the governments of Bahrain, Libya and Yemen to show restraint in responding to peaceful protests and to respect the rights of their people.”

    On Friday, thousands observed funerals for the four people killed in a pre-dawn raid on a protest encampment at Manama’s Pearl roundabout a day earlier.
    Riot police had used clubs, tear gas and bird-shot guns to break up the crowd of protesters. They also tore down their tents, and blockaded the roundabout with police vehicles and barbed wire. More than 200 were wounded in that raid.

    At the funerals on Friday, many chanted slogans against Bahrain’s ruling Al Khalifa family. They said that while they would earlier have settled for the prime minister being sacked, they were now demanding the fall of the entire ruling government, including the royal family.

    Mourners told Al Jazeera that they were both grief-stricken and angry at the heavy-handedness of the police, and that they were demanding that the international community take notice of what they call the brutality of the security forces.
    As Friday prayers commenced, Sheikh Issa Qassem, a prominent Bahraini Shia Muslim religious leader, delivering his sermon in a northwestern village, described Thursday’s violence as a “massacre”.

    Our correspondent reported that Qassem said the government was attempting to create a “sectarian divide” between Sunnis and Shias. He advocated peaceful protests, saying “violence is the way of the government”, and that protesters should not espouse violent actions.

    “Many of those who in the past came out [to protests] … are afraid. They’re frightened and they don’t want to turn up at a protest … because they are fearful for their lives,” our correspondent said, citing an incident on February 15 in Manama, when at least one person was killed when police fired on a funeral procession.

    Also on Friday, Bahraini state television showed pictures of a pro-government rally, attended by hundreds of people, taking place in Manama, despite a ban on public gatherings.




    Women of the revolution

    Egyptian women describe the spirit of Tahrir and their hope that the equality they found there will live on.

    Fatma Naib Last Modified: 19 Feb 2011 12:11 GMT

    When 26-year-old Asmaa Mahfouz wrote on Facebook that she was going to Cairo’s Tahrir Square and urged all those who wanted to save the country to join her, the founding member of the April 6 Youth Movement was hoping to seize the moment as Tunisians showed that it was possible for a popular uprising to defeat a dictator.

    Mahfouz later explained on Egyptian television that she and three others from the movement went to the square and began shouting: “Egyptians, four people set themselves on fire out of humiliation and poverty. Egyptians, four people set fire to themselves because they were afraid of the security agencies, not of the fire. Four people set fire to themselves in order to tell you to awaken. We are setting ourselves on fire so that you will take action. Four people set themselves on fire in order to say to the regime: Wake up. We are fed up.”

    In a video she subsequently posted online , which quickly went viral, she declared: “As long as you say there is no hope, then there will be no hope, but if you go down and take a stance, then there will be hope.”

    Egyptian women, just like men, took up the call to ‘hope’. Here they describe the spirit of Tahrir – the camaraderie and equality they experienced – and their hope that the model of democracy established there will be carried forward as Egyptians shape a new political and social landscape.

    Mona Seif, 24, researcher
     I have never felt as at peace and as safe as I did during those days in Tahrir 

    The daughter of a political activist who was imprisoned at the time of her birth and the sister of a blogger who was jailed by the Mubarak regime, Mona Seif says nothing could have prepared her for the scale and intensity of the protests.

    “I didn’t think it was going to be a revolution. I thought if we could [mobilise] a couple of thousand people then that would be great.

    I was angry about the corruption in the country, [about the death of] Khaled Said and the torture of those suspected but never convicted [of being behind] the Alexandria Coptic church [bombing].

    I realised this was going to be bigger than we had anticipated when 20,000 people marched towards Tahrir Square on January 25. That is when we saw a shift; it was not about the minimum wage or emergency law anymore. It became much bigger than this, it turned into a protest against the regime, demanding that Mubarak step down and that parliament be dissolved.

    On the night later dubbed ‘the battle of the camels’ when pro-Mubarak thugs attacked us, I was terrified. I thought they were going to shoot us all and get it over with. The turning point for me was when I saw the number of people ready to face death for their beliefs.

    “The turning point for me was when I saw the number of people ready to die for their beliefs”Mona Seif

    I was amazed by the peoples’ determination to keep this peaceful even when we were under deadly attacks. When we caught the pro-Mubarak thugs, the guys would protect them from being beaten and say: ‘Peaceful, peaceful, we are not going to beat anyone up’. That was when I started thinking: ‘No matter what happens we are not going to quit until Mubarak leaves’. The spirit of the people in Tahrir kept us going.

    My friend and I had the role of ensuring that all of the videos and pictures from Tahrir were uploaded and as the internet connection was bad in Tahrir, we would use a friend’s nearby flat to make sure the images made it out so everyone could see what was happening in the square.

    I have never felt as at peace and as safe as I did during those days in Tahrir. There was a sense of coexistence that overcame all of the problems that usually happen – whether religious or gender based.

    Pre-January 25 whenever we would attend protests I would always be told by the men to go to the back to avoid getting injured and that used to anger me. But since January 25 people have begun to treat me as an equal. There was this unspoken admiration for one another in the square.

    We went through many ups and downs together. It felt like it had become a different society – there was one Egypt inside Tahrir and another Egypt outside.

    The moment Tahrir opened up, we saw a lot of people that were not there before and there were reports of females being harassed.

    “There was one Egypt inside Tahrir and another Egypt outside”Mona Seif

    I know that Egypt has changed and we will transfer the spirit of the square to the rest of the country. Before Tahrir if I was [harassed] I would refrain from asking people for help, because there are a lot of people that would disappoint you by blaming you. But I think the spirit of the revolution has empowered us to spread the feeling we established wider and wider. From now on, if anything happens to me, I am going to scream, I am going to ask people to help me and I know that I will find people that will help me.

    I was in front of the TV building when the news broke about Mubarak stepping down. I found myself swept away with people screaming and cheering. It was an emotional moment that I celebrated with strangers. People were hugging me, shaking my hands, distributing sweets. At that moment we were all one.

    I no longer feel alienated from society. I now walk the streets of Cairo and smile at strangers all the time. I have gained a sense of belonging with everyone on the streets of Cairo – at least for now. Before January 25 I was tempted to leave the country. This feeling has changed now, I want to stay here. This is an extension of our role in the revolution, we have to stay here and contribute to changing our society.”

    Gigi Ibrahim, 24, political activist
    In my experience women play a pivotal role in all protests and strikes 

    Political activist Gigi Ibrahim played an instrumental role in spreading the word about the protests.

    “I started [my political activism] by just talking to people [who were] involved [in the labour movement]. Then I became more active and the whole thing became addictive. I went to meetings and took part in protests. I learned very quickly that most of the strikes in the labour movement were started by women.
    In my experience women play a pivotal role in all protests and strikes. Whenever violence erupts, the women would step up and fight the police, and they would be beaten just as much as the men.

    I have seen it during the Khaled Said protests in June 2010 when many women were beaten and arrested. Muslim, Christian – all types of women protested.
    My family always had problems with me taking part in protests. They prevented me from going for my safety because I am a girl. They were worried about the risks. I would have to lie about attending protests.
    When the police violently cleared the square on January 25, I was shot in the back by a rubber bullet while trying to run away from the police as they tear gassed us. I returned to the square, as did many others, the following day and stayed there on and off for the next 18 days.
    As things escalated my dad got increasingly worried. On January 28, my sister wanted to lock me in the house. They tried to stop me from leaving, but I was determined and I went out. I moved to my aunt’s place that is closer to Tahrir Square and I would go there every now and again to wash and rest before returning to the square.
    At first my family was very worried, but as things escalated they started to understand and to be more supportive. My family is not politically active at all.

    The day-to-day conditions were not easy. Most of us would use the bathroom inside the nearby mosque. Others would go to nearby flats where people kindly opened their homes for people to use.

    “[When the pro-Mubarak thugs attacked us] we were unarmed, we had nothing. That night I felt fear but it changed into determination”Gigi Ibrahim

    I was in Tahrir Square on February 2, when pro-Mubarak thugs attacked us with petrol bombs and rocks. That was the most horrific night. I was trapped in the middle of the square. The outskirts of the square were like a war zone. The more things escalated the more determined we became not to stop. Many people were injured and many died and that pushed us to go on and not give up.
    I thought if those armed pro-Mubarak thugs came inside the square it would be the end of us. We were unarmed, we had nothing. That night I felt fear but it changed into determination.

    The women played an important role that night. Because we were outnumbered, we had to secure all the exits in the square. The exits between each end of the square would take up to 10 minutes to reach, so the women would go and alert others about where the danger was coming from and make sure that the people who were battling swapped positions with others so that they could rest before going out into the battle again.

    The women were also taking care of the wounded in makeshift clinics in the square. Some women were on the front line throwing rocks with the men. I was on the front line documenting the battle with my camera. It was like nothing that I have ever seen or experienced before.
    During the 18 days neither I nor any of my friends were harassed. I slept in Tahrir with five men around me that I didn’t know and I was safe.

    But that changed on the day Mubarak stepped down. The type of people who came then were not interested in the revolution. They were there to take pictures. They came for the carnival atmosphere and that was when things started to change. 

    When the announcement came we all erupted in joy. I was screaming and crying. I hugged everyone around me. I went from being happy and crying to complete shock. It took a while for it to sink in.
    The revolution is not over. All of our demands have not yet been met. We have to continue. This is where the real hard work begins, but it will take a different shape than staging sit-ins in the square. Rebuilding Egypt is going to be tough and we all have to take part in this. There are organised strikes demanding workers’ rights for better pay and conditions and those are the battles to be won now.”

    Salma El Tarzi, 33, filmmaker
    What kept us going was the conviction that we did not have any option – it was either freedom or go to jail

    Having never been politically active, Salma El Tarzi was sceptical about the protesters’ chances of getting their demands met until the day when she stood on her balcony and saw the crowds. She decided to join the protesters and has not looked back since.

    “I was protesting on my own on the 26th and 27th, but bumped into my younger brother in the crowd by chance on the 28th. We just carried on from then onward.

    What kept us going was the conviction that we did not have any option – it was either stay and fight for freedom or go to jail.
    My dad has been very supportive. He was getting to the point where he was telling me and my brother: “Don’t run away from gun fire, run towards it.”

    While in Tahrir we were all receiving threatening calls telling us that if we didn’t vacate the square we would be hunted and killed. But we didn’t care at that point. We were at the point of no return.
    Tahrir Square became our mini model of how democracy should be. Living there was not easy. We would use a nearby mosque and I would go to a friend’s house every now and then to wash. But I must admit that conditions were not ideal. It was very cold, we slept on the floor. Some of us had tents and some made their own tents. Let’s put it this way, due to the difficult conditions we called it the ‘smell of a revolution’.

    “Something changed in the dynamic between men and women in Tahrir. When the men saw that women were fighting on the front line that changed their perception of us and we were all united. We were all Egyptians now”Salma El Tarzi

    I was one of many women, young and old, there. We were as active as the men. Some acted as nurses and looked after the wounded during the battles; others were simply helping with distributing water. But there were a great number of women that were on the front line hurling stones at the police and pro-Mubarak thugs.

    The duties in the square were divided. We were very organised. Something changed in the dynamic between men and women in Tahrir. When the men saw that women were fighting in the front line that changed their perception of us and we were all united. We were all Egyptians now.
    The general view of women changed for many. Not a single case of sexual harassment happened during the protests up until the last day when Mubarak stepped down. That is a big change for Egypt.
    The fear barrier was broken for all of us. When we took part in the protests it was just a protest for our basic human rights, but they [the regime] escalated it to a revolution. Their brutality and violence turned it into a revolution. What started as a day of rage turned into a revolution that later toppled the regime that had been in power for 30 years. They [the regime] empowered us through their violence; they made us hold on to the dream of freedom even more. We were all walking around with wounds, but we still kept going. We were even treating injured horses that they had used in their brutal attacks against us.
    Before January 25 I didn’t have faith that my voice could be heard. I didn’t feel like I was in control of my future. The metaphor used by Mubarak that he was our father and we were his children made us feel as though we lacked any motivation.

    The revolution woke us up – a collective consciousness has been awoken.”

    You can follow @FatmaNaib on Twitter


    Bahrain, Libya and Yemen try to crush protests with violence

    Reports of dozens killed by Gaddafi’s security forces, while Bahrain troops leave scores woundedIan Black, Middle East editor, and Martin Chulov in Manama

  • guardian.co.uk, Friday 18 February 2011 19.37 GMT
  • Article history

    Protesters in Tobruk seen knocking over statue of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s Green Book in footage posted on YouTube Link to this video

    Violence in Libya and Bahrain has claimed scores of lives and left many more injured as the two Arab countries were united by popular protests that continue to shake the status quo and sound alarm bells across the region and the world.

    A week after Egypt’s president, Hosni Mubarak, was forced to stand down, dozens of Libyans were reported killed by Muammar Gaddafi’s security forces. Meanwhile, Bahraini troops shot dead at least one protester and wounded 50 others after mourners buried four people who were killed on Thursday in the worst mass unrest the western-backed Gulf state has ever seen.

    “We don’t care if they kill 5,000 of us,” a protester screamed inside Salmaniya hospital, which has become a staging point for Bahrain’s raging youth. “The regime must fall and we will make sure it does.”

    Last night footage was posted on YouTube apparently showing Bahraini security forces shooting protesters.

    Western nations have been struggling to adjust their policies in response to the security crackdowns in Arab countries.

    But Britain announced that it was revoking 44 licences for the export of arms to Bahrain amid concern over the violent suppression of protests in the Gulf state. The Foreign Office also said that eight arms export licences to Libya had been withdrawn, while a review of arms exports to the wider region continues.

    Bahrain’s crown prince Sheikh Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa went on television to promise a national dialogue once calm has returned. But the country’s most senior Shia cleric, Sheikh Issa Qassem, condemned attacks on protesters as a “massacre” and said the government had shut the door to such dialogue.

    While the unrest in Bahrain was broadcast instantly around the world, the unprecedented bloodshed in the remote towns of eastern Libya was far harder for global media to cover.

    Amid an official news blackout in Libya, there were opposition claims of 60 dead as diplomats reported the use of heavy weapons in Benghazi, the country’s second city, and “a rapidly deteriorating situation” in the latest – and the most repressive – Arab country to be hit by serious unrest.

    Libyans said a “massacre” had been perpetrated in Benghazi, al-Bayda and elsewhere in the region. Crowds in the port city of Tobruk were shown destroying a statue of Gaddafi’s Green Book and chanting, “We want the regime to fall,” echoing the slogan of the uprising in Egypt.

    Umm Muhammad, a political activist in Benghazi, told the Guardian that 38 people had died in the city. “They [security forces] were using live fire here, not just teargas. This is a bloody massacre – in Benghazi, in al-Bayda, all over Libya. They are releasing prisoners from the jails to attack the demonstrators.” Benghazi’s al-Jala hospital was appealing for emergency blood supplies to help treat the injured.

    News and rumours spread rapidly via social media websites including Twitter and Facebook, but information remained fragmentary and difficult to confirm.

    In Yemen at least five people were reported killed when security forces and anti-government protesters clashed for a seventh consecutive day in the capital, Sana’a, Aden and other cities, with crowds demanding an end to President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s 32-year rule.

    Barack Obama said he was “deeply concerned” about the reports of violence from Bahrain, a close ally and the base of the US fifth fleet, as well as those from Libya and Yemen, and he urged their rulers to show restraint with protesters.

    Navi Pillay, the UN high commissioner for human rights, also condemned the killings of protesters in Algeria, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Yemen. “The Middle East and North Africa region is boiling with anger,” he said. “At the root of this anger is decades of neglect of people’s aspirations to realise not only civil and political rights, but also economic, social and cultural rights.”

    In Cairo’s Tahrir Square, the influential Egyptian cleric Sheikh Yusef al-Qaradawi said the Arab world had changed and said Egypt’s new military leaders should listen to their people “to liberate  us from the government that Mubarak formed”.

    It has also emerged that the Ministry of Defence has helped train more than 100 Bahraini army officers in the past five years at Sandhurst and other top UK colleges.

    Een helder verhaal van Bertus Hendriks en Roel Meijer over de ook in Nederland veel besproken Moslimbroederschap (http://religionresearch.org/martijn/2011/02/19/utopische-moslimbroeders-zijn-realisten-geworden/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+religionresearch%2FuWnN+%28C+L+O+S+E+R%29):

    Utopische Moslimbroeders zijn realisten geworden

    19 February 2011 9 views No Comment

    Guest Authors: Bertus Hendriks & Roel Meijer

    Het is bijna onmogelijk een nuchter debat te voeren over de politieke islam, waarvan de Moslimbroederschap de belichaming vormt. Een voorbeeld is het artikel van Hala Naoum Nehme over de rol van de Moslimbroederschap in de omwenteling in Egypte (Opinie & Debat, 14 februari). Eens een dief, altijd een dief, zo zou je haar analyse kunnen samenvatten.

    De Moslimbroederschap heeft in het verleden inderdaad een revolutionair islamitisch programma uitgedragen. Dit heeft overigens in Egypte nooit tot enig resultaat geleid. Toen de Broederschap in 1954 door de toenmalige Egyptische president Nasser beschuldigd werd van een poging tot staatsgreep, volgde een genadeloze repressie die veel heeft bijgedragen aan de radicalisering van de Broederschap en haar toenmalige chef-ideoloog Sayyid Qutb. Deze is een belangrijke inspiratiebron geworden voor de extreme en gewelddadige jihadstrijders van Gama’at Islamiyya, Jihad Islamiyya en de Al-Qaida variëteit.

    Afstand genomen

    Maar sindsdien heeft de Broederschap onder Hassan al-Hudeibi, de opvolger van oprichter Hassan al- Banna, nadrukkelijk afstand genomen van de gewelddadige opvattingen van Sayyid Qutb. En is de Broederschap begonnen aan een ‘lange mars door de instituties’ die karakter en opstelling van de Broederschap ingrijpend heeft veranderd.

    De afgelopen dertig jaar heeft de Moslimbroederschap geleerd dat politiek bedrijven gepaard gaat met het sluiten van compromissen. Dat bleek niet alleen uit haar deelname aan de verkiezingen van 1984, 1987 en 2005, maar vooral uit de manier waarop de beweging opereerde in beroepsorganisaties als de Journalistenbond, de Artsenbond, de Orde van Advocaten en andere standsorganisaties. Daar heeft ze door haar pragmatische opstelling veel invloed verworven. Ook de wijze waarop de 88 in 2005 gekozen parlementariërs van de Broederschap hebben geopereerd bevestigt dit proces van geleidelijke hervorming. Dat ging niet zonder slag of stoot. Radicale facties hebben zich verbitterd afgescheiden, terwijl vooral jongere kaderleden voor wie de modernisering niet snel genoeg ging, zich afscheidden. Die richtten de Wasat-partij op, door Mubarak eveneens illegaal verklaard. Maar ook onder hen die de Broederschap trouw bleven, woedden discussies; tussen de oude garde en de generatie van mensen als Issam al-Ariaan die nu prominent naar voren treedt, en vervolgens ook tussen die generatie en de nog veel jongere Broederbloggers.


    De hervormingstrend en de obstakels daarbij komen ook tot uitdrukking in de heftige discussies rond een ontwerpbeginselprogramma waarin de Broederschap nadrukkelijk ingaat op economische en sociale kwesties en niet alleen de slogan ‘islam is de oplossing’ bezigt. Met deze verschuiving van utopisme naar praktische politiek en belangenbehartiging is het idee van een islamitische staat geleidelijk achter de horizon verdwenen.

    Zelfs de invoering van de sharia is op de achtergrond geraakt. Dat was ook niet zo’n issue omdat de Moslimbroederschap zich makkelijk kon vinden in het door Sadat ingevoerde grondwetsartikel dat de sharia de voornaamste bron van wetgeving is. Dit illustreert nog eens de stelling van Olivier Roy, dat de regimes die hun dictatoriale optreden rechtvaardigen met de noodzaak de Moslimbroederschap tegen te houden, de secularisatie allerminst hebben bevorderd. Om het gras voor de voeten van de Broeders weg te maaien, werd de islamisering door het regime juist bevorderd. Daar kunnen de Kopten over meepraten.

    18 karaats-democraten

    Betekent dit dat de Moslimbroeders nu 18 karaats-democraten geworden zijn? Natuurlijk niet, en dat soort romantische illusies koesteren wij ook niet. Zo huldigt de Broederschap zeer problematische standpunten op het terrein van gelijke rechten voor vrouwen en niet-islamitische minderheden. De meningen zijn intern sterk verdeeld. Terwijl de meest liberale vertegenwoordigers bereid zijn een vrouw of een koptische christen als president te accepteren, is dit voor de oude garde nog een brug te ver.

    Niet minder tekenend is de strijd om de voorrang tussen de twee principes van de beweging, namelijk de soevereiniteit van het volk en de sharia. Bepaalt de democratische wil van het volk de wet of moeten alle wetten uiteindelijk toch getoetst worden aan de sharia door een raad van geestelijken? De discussie daarover zal snel beslecht moeten worden nu de Broederschap besloten heeft met een eigen politiek partij aan de verkiezingen deel te nemen. Dat dwingt op deze en andere heikele punten met een concreet en duidelijk standpunt te komen.


    Al deze ontwikkelingen afdoen als met twee monden spreken van een wolf in schaapskleren is een versleten, maar ook niet te weerleggen argument. Harde taal bewijst immers het extremistische en fundamenteel ondemocratische karakter van de beweging, concrete en zichtbare hervormingen bewijzen alleen maar de geheime agenda van de beweging om de wereld zand in de ogen te strooien. In dit gesloten wereldbeeld heb je altijd gelijk. Maar steeds meer beleidsmakers, van het Arab Reform Project van de Carnegie Foundation tot de CIA, zijn ervan overtuigd dat het toekomstscenario van de Moslimbroederschap het Turkse model is en niet het Iraanse.

    Het is belangrijk dat de Broederschap kan meedoen aan eerlijke en vrije verkiezingen waar ze de concurrentie moet aangaan met geloofwaardige, seculiere partijen, voor wie niet ‘islam’ maar ‘Tunesië’ de oplossing is. Die moeten dan wel de tijd krijgen zich te organiseren, dus geen overhaaste verkiezingen waarbij de Broederschap met zijn goed gewortelde netwerk een onevenredige voorsprong geniet.

    Er is na de ‘revolutie van de jeugd’ die de Broederschap evenzeer heeft overvallen als het regime, voldoende reden de uitslag van die verkiezingsstrijd met het nodige vertrouwen tegemoet te zien.

    Bertus Hendriks en Roel Meijer zijn beiden verbonden aan Clingendael. Roel Meijer is eveneens verbonden aan de afdeling Islam & Arabisch van de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen en redacteur (met Edwin Bakker) van de bundel The Muslim Brotherhood in Europe: Burdens of the Past, Challenges of the Future (2011).



    The revolution is not over

    Adam Shatz 11 February 2011


    The demonstrations that have rocked Egypt for the last 18 days have turned into a nation-wide street party, and it is impossible not to be moved by the scenes of Egyptians celebrating their victory. The dictator who ruled Egypt for the last 30 years has been forced from office by non-violent, civil disobedience on a scale not seen since the 1979 revolution in Iran. And the principal agent of transformation – until today, when Mubarak stood down and the army took over – has been the Arab citizen, a striking change in a region where the romanticised figure of ‘resistance’ has been the soldier, the guerilla and, at times, the suicide bomber. At the White House press conference today, Obama and his press officer Robert Gibbs insisted that Egypt’s revolution was really just about Egypt, but they knew better: Washington’s policy during the crisis had been driven by fear of regional instability, and by the fears whispered into the administration’s ears by Israel and the Saudis, and shifted only when Mubarak became a clear liability to American interests.The success of the Egyptian revolutionary model will be studied closely, and its lessons applied. The realisation of the Egyptian dream is the nightmare of Arab despots, and of Binyamin Netanyahu.

    But the revolution in Egypt is not over: in fact, it has only begun. Mubarak’s removal from power was only the first objective of Egypt’s demonstrators. It was not just Mubarak but the regime that they want to dislodge, and to replace with a democratic government based on the rule of law. One of the pillars of the regime is the institution that is now improbably cast as the national saviour: the army. The army is respected, even admired by most Egyptians for its role in defending the country’s borders, and for its success in the 1973 war. It has always kept – officially – a discreet distance from the day-to-day running of the country, but it has also acquired a deep investment in the status quo, particularly in the country’s economy: the army is involved in the production of everything from washing machines and heaters to clothing and pharmaceuticals, and is estimated to own about a third of the country’s assets. Nor does it have much incentive to make any changes in foreign policy that might affect the terms of US aid: $1.3 billion per year.

    One of the least convincing slogans in Tahrir Square has been ‘the people and the army, standing together’. One can hardly blame the protesters for expressing this hope: it was, arguably, a necessary fiction, without which millions of people would not have dared to turn out to call for Mubarak to stand down. The army played its cards well. Under strong pressure from Robert Gates, it did not fire on demonstrators, and, after Mubarak’s non-resignation speech yesterday – a fantastic tribute to the powers of self-deception – it finally decided to wash its hands of him. But the army did not join the movement, either: a critical phase in classical revolutions. And the communiqués issued by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces of Egypt have been ambiguous at best, full of vague promises and calls for people to return home. Certainly they indicate no conversion to the principle of civilian rule. The supreme council, now at the helm of power, was chosen and shaped by Mubarak; its chairman is the defence minister, Mohammed Hussein Tantawi, described in a 2008 WikiLeaks cables as ‘aged and change-resistant’. It is not a description that inspires confidence.

    Een democratische omwenteling in de Arabische Wereld? Deel 5 – 5 ثورة ديمقراطية في العالم العربي؟ جزء


    Van http://doaa910.maktoobblog.com/ . Zo laat je dus tegenwoordig een dictator struikelen. Geeft vrij goed weer wat er in Tunesië en Egypte gebeurd is. Cartoon afkomstig van een van de befaamde blogs, die een sleutelrol vervulden in de Egyptische opstand

    nieuws en artikelenoverzicht van de actuele gebeurtenissen in de Arabische wereld deel 5 (zie ook deel 1, deel 2, deel 3 en deel 4)


    Chronologisch overzicht van dag tot dag (op de site van de NOS): http://nos.nl/artikel/215322-chronologie-onrust-arabische-wereld.html

    Voor de nieuwste ontwikkelingen, bekijk hieronder: 

    Al-Jazeera English live


    Palestinian Authority closes Al-Jazeera office

    klik op bovenstaand logo



    Hier nog een kleine update van de laatste dagen van de NOS (http://nos.nl/artikel/215322-chronologie-onrust-arabische-wereld.html):

    Chronologie onrust Arabische wereld

    Het leger helpt met het verwijderen van tenten op het Tahrirplein in Caïro» Het leger helpt met het verwijderen van tenten op het Tahrirplein in Caïro AFP

    Toegevoegd: zondag 30 jan 2011, 15:31

    Update: zondag 13 feb 2011, 14:36

    Dat zijn zelfverbranding zoveel gevolgen zou hebben, had de Tunesiër Mohammed Bouazizi waarschijnlijk niet kunnen bedenken. Zijn actie leidde niet alleen tot protesten tegen de regering in zijn eigen land, maar ook tegen die in andere landen, zoals Egypte, Jemen, Jordanië en Algerije.

    Een chronologisch overzicht van de gebeurtenissen.


    13 februari

    Twee dagen na het vertrek van Mubarak zijn er nog steeds demonstranten op het plein. Het nieuwe militaire regime wil dat iedereen voor de avond het plein verlaten heeft. Leger en vrijwilligers ruimen samen de rotzooi en barricades op en er rijden voor het eerst sinds de massale protesten weer auto’s op het Tahrirplein.

    In Caïro zijn tijdens de betogingen toch belangrijke kunstvoorwerpen uit het Egyptisch Museum gestolen. Het gaat om acht stukken, waaronder een verguld houten beeld van farao Toetanchamon.

    In Jemen zijn er voor de derde opeenvolgende dag demonstraties tegen het regime van president Ali Abdullah Saleh. Dat leidde tot een confrontatie tussen de politie en de anti-regeringsdemonstranten.

    12 februari
    In Egypte is de hele nacht gefeest na het vertrek van Mubarak. Ook overdag blijft het druk op het Tahrirplein in Caïro en op andere plaatsen. Mubarak zou zijn vertrokken naar Saudi-Arabië.
    In de Algerijnse hoofdstad Algiers houden duizenden mensen een protestmars, hoewel dat door de overheid is verboden. De betogers eisen meer democratie en hervormingen en sommigen eisen het vertrek van de 73-jarige president Bouteflika, die al twaalf jaar aan de macht is.`
    Duizenden jongeren gaan in Sanaa, de hoofdstad van Jemen, de straat op om het aftreden van president Ali Abdallah Saleh te eisen. “Na Mubarak is Ali aan de beurt”, roepen de betogers.


    11 februari
    Vicepresident Suleiman verklaart op de staatstelevisie dat president Mubarak toch vertrekt. Hij draagt de macht over aan het leger. Op het Tahrirplein in Caïro wordt gejuicht.
    De Amerikaanse president Obama zegt in een toespraak dat Egypte geschiedenis heeft geschreven en nooit meer hetzelfde zal zijn. “Het is niet het eind van de ontwikkeling, maar het begin.” Ook in andere landen wordt positief gereageerd op het vertrek van Mubarak.
    10 februari
    President Mubarak van Egypte houdt een toespraak. Vooraf is de verwachting dat hij zijn aftreden zal aankondigen, maar dat doet hij niet. Hij draagt zijn regeringsverantwoordelijkheid over aan vicepresident Suleiman, maar zegt pas weg te gaan “als hij dood en begraven is”. De betogers op het Tahrirplein zijn zwaar teleurgesteld en de sfeer is gespannen.
    Mensenrechtenorganisaties beschuldigen het Egyptische leger van martelingen van betogers. Op de 17de dag weer demonstraties, voor de tweede achtereenvolgende dag zijn er stakingen.
    De minister van Oudheden van Egypte, Zahi Hawass, zegt dat de kunstschatten in het land de onrust goed zijn doorgekomen. Volgens hem waren sommige plunderaars op zoek naar het mythische rood kwikzilver.


    9 februari
    Honderden antiregeringsbetogers blokkeren de ingang van het parlementsgebouw in Caïro. Ze willen voorkomen dat leden van de partij van president Mubarak, de Nationaal Democratische Partij, naar binnen gaan. Het gebouw wordt ontruimd. Ook op het Tahrirplein wordt weer gedemonsteerd.
    In de woestijnstad El Kharga, in het zuiden van Egypte, komt bij rellen een betoger om. Meer dan honderd mensen raken gewond.
    Touroperator Skytours is voornemens om Nederlanders weer naar Egypte te vliegen.
    Koning Abdullah van Jordanië beëdigt een nieuwe ministersploeg die moet werken aan politieke en economische hervormingen.
    8 februari


    De Egyptische regering komt met een plan voor een geleidelijke machtsoverdracht, maar de demonstranten vertrouwen dat niet en eisen dat Mubarak nu opstapt. Het protest tegen de president neemt weer toe. Honderdduizenden mensen verzamelen zich op het Tahrirplein in Caïro. De BBC spreekt van de grootste demonstratie sinds het begin van het protest op 25 januari.


    7 februari
    In de Egyptische hoofdstad Caïro staan nog altijd tienduizenden mensen op het Tahrirplein. De demonstranten willen later deze week weer grote demonstraties houden en ze zijn niet van plan met de protesten op te houden voordat president Mubarak vertrekt. De onrust is wel afgenomen en het openbare leven komt weer gedeeltelijk op gang.
    Het nieuwe kabinet in Egypte kondigt een salarisverhoging voor ambtenaren aan van 15 procent. Ook de pensioenen gaan omhoog.


    6 februari
    In Tunesië worden alle activiteiten van de partij van de verdreven president Ben Ali opgeschort. De kantoren blijven dicht totdat justitie zich uitgesproken heeft over een verbod. De autoriteiten zeggen dat de maatregelen nodig zijn in het belang van de staatsveiligheid. Ze volgen op gewelddadige incidenten die volgens de autoriteiten veroorzaakt zijn door aanhangers van Ben Ali. Die zouden daarmee chaos in het land willen veroorzaken.
    De dertiende protestdag in Caïro wordt uitgeroepen tot de ‘Dag van de martelaren’ ter ere van de demonstranten die zijn omgekomen. Het openbare leven komt weer op gang. De beurs en de banken zijn voor het eerst in een week weer open en op veel plekken wordt ook de troep op straat opgeruimd.
    De Egyptische regering doet in een rondetafelgesprek toezeggingen aan de oppositie. Voor het eerst in de geschiedenis is ook de Moslim Broederschap betrokken bij het overleg. Vicepresident Suleiman belooft persvrijheid en de vrijlating van iedereen die bij de betogingen van de afgelopen twee weken is opgepakt.


    5 februari
    Berichten dat Mubarak aftreedt als leider van de regeringspartij NDP, worden even later weer tegengesproken. Wel vervangt hij het bestuur van de partij, onder wie zijn zoon Gamal. Hossam Badrawi wordt de nieuwe secretaris-generaal. Hij wordt gerekend tot de gematigde vleugel van de partij.
    De VS willen dat president Mubarak aanblijft totdat er een overgangsregering is. Dat zegt een speciale afgezant van president Obama.
    Op het Tahrirplein in Caïro blijft het rustig. President Mubarak overlegt al vroeg met enkele ministers over de staat van de economie in zijn land.
    In El Kef, in het noordwesten van Tunesië, worden zeker twee mensen gedood wanneer de politie het vuur opent op demonstranten, die zich hebben verzameld bij het politiebureau. Ze eisen het aftreden van het hoofd van de politie die volgens hen schuldig is aan machtsmisbruik.


    4 februari
    De betogers roepen deze dag uit tot ‘Dag van Vertrek’ voor Mubarak. Minister van Defensie Tantawi spreekt op het Tahrirplein met militairen en demonstranten. Hij is de eerste vertegenwoordiger van het regime die zich in het hol van de leeuw waagt.
    In Israël maakt men zich grote zorgen over wat er in het buurland gebeurt. De regering vreest voor een nieuwe vijandige moslimstaat.
    Leiders van de Europese Unie roepen Egypte op om snel een brede overgangsregering in te stellen. President Obama roept Mubarak op te luisteren naar het Egyptische volk voor een orderlijke overdracht van de macht.
    De Egyptische president Mubarak overleeft de ‘Dag van Vertrek’. Hij zit nog steeds in zijn paleis.


    The false anxiety of influence


    The revolution in Egypt is a unique historical event, seperate from Iran in 1979 or France in 1789, author says.

    Hamid Dabashi Last Modified: 12 Feb 2011 17:29 GMT
    Egypt’s revolution could have affects across the whole global south [Reuters]  

    Comparisons between Egypt’s current uprising and Iran’s 1979 revolution have become something of a cliché.

    The mass demonstrations in Egypt against a US-backed dictator have reminded many observers of similar scenes from the Iranian Revolution of 1979, leading some to believe that another “Islamic Revolution” is in the making.   

    This is a false reading of the Iranian Revolution of 1977-1979; and an even more flawed reading of the Egyptian Revolution of 2011. 

    This, above all, is a logically flawed assimilation of a unique historical event that was ignited in Tunisia, has now spread to Egypt and perhaps will expand even farther in the Arab and Muslim world, to the point of even casting aside cliché terms, including and the most colonially pernicious of them all: “the Middle East”. 

    Meydan al-Tahrir in Egypt today, like its counterpart Meydan-e Azadi in Tehran two years ago (the two Arabic and Persian terms mean exactly the same: “Freedom Square”), is the epicenter of a planetary reconfiguration of world politics.

    Watershed moment

    Irreducible to no other event, Egyptians gathering at Tahrir Square have staged a global spectacle of the democratic will of a people. The storming of the Bastille and the French Revolution of 1789 is the closest European event that comes near to what is happening in Egypt and its open-ended consequences for the global south. And, when the Bastille was happening, no one knew exactly what a new watershed had been marked in European history. 

    Allowing for its own metaphors gradually to emerge, the Egypt of 2011 is neither Iran of 1979 nor  France of 1789 nor any other country of any other time. It is what it is: It is Egypt; and it is 2011.

    What has happened in Tunisia and now in Egypt and perhaps even beyond is not tantamount to the fall of the Berlin Wall, or by extension what happened in Eastern Europe in the aftermath of the collapse of Soviet Union. 

    The Tahrir Square of 2011 is not the Tiananmen Square of 1989. Such lazy clichés, phony metaphors, and easy allegories send people after a useless goose chase preventing them from properly seeing the events in Tunisia and Egypt.

    The emerging facts in Tunisia, Egypt, and Iran demand and will exact their own concepts and metaphors, leading to fresh insights, perspectives, and theories. 

    We are all blessed to be present at the historic moment of a massive epistemic shift, not merely in the geopolitics of the region, or the planetary configuration of power, but even more crucially, in the moral and political imagination that we must muster to come to terms with it. 

    False constructions

    To reach for those fresh insights we must first clear the air of false assimilations and misbegotten metaphors and above all of the whole false anxiety of “influence”. The falsifying trend of comparing the Egyptian revolution of 2011 to the Iranian revolution of 1979 is usually predicated on an ulterior ideological motive. 

    The pro-Isreali neocons in the United States and their Zionist counterparts in Israel compare the Egyptian and Iranian revolutions because they are frightened out of their wits by a massive revolutionary uprising in a major Arab country that may no longer allow the abuse of the democratic will of a people for the cozy continuation of a colonial settlement called “Israel”. 

    Echoing the Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, the Iranian neocon contingencies like Abbas Milani of the Hoover Institute think tank in California fear that the Muslim Brotherhood will take over the Egyptian revolution and create an Islamic Republic—habitually turning a blind eye to the fact that a fanatical “Jewish Brotherhood” has already created a Jewish Republic for more than sixty years in the same neighborhood.

    Soon after Binyamin Netanyahu and Abbas Milani, and from precisely the opposite ideological direction, Ali Khamenei, the leader of the Islamic Republic and the vast petrodollar propaganda machinery at his disposal, celebrated what is happening in Egypt as a reflection of Khomeini’s will and legacy and the commencement of an “Islamic awakening”.  Not so fast, interjected an almost instant announcement from the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. This was not an Islamic Revolution, they explained, but an Egyptian revolution that belonged to all Egyptians—Muslims, Christians, people from other ideological persuasions. 

    Fighting theocracy

    In between the frightful Zionist propaganda and Islamist wishful thinking myriads of other opinions have been aired over the last two weeks in one way or another measuring the influence of the Islamic Revolution in Iran over the revolutionary uprising in Egypt. 

    This is a false and falsifying presumption first and foremost because what happened in Iran during the 1977-1979 revolutionary uprising was not an “Islamic Revolution” but a violently and viciously “Islamised revolution”.

    A brutal and sustained course of repression—perpetrated under the successive smoke screens of the American Hostage Crisis of 1979-1981 and the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988, and the Salman Rushdi Affair of 1989-1999—is the crucial difference between an “Islamic” and “Islamised” revolution. 

    A cruel crescendo of university purges, cultural revolutions, mass executions of oppositional forces, and forced exile, took full advantage of domestic and regional crisisis over the last three decades to turn a multifaceted, modern, and cosmopolitan revolution into a banal and vicious theocracy. 

    The CIA-sponsored coup of 1953, the massive arming of Saddam Hossein to wage war against Iran, and the creation of the Taliban as a bulwark against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, all engineered by the United States, and the continued armed robbery of Palestine by Israel have been the regional contexts in which the Islamic Republic destroyed all its ideological and political alternatives and created a malicious theocracy, consistently and systematically abusing regional crisis to keep itself in power.     

    That historical fact ought to be remembered today so no false analogy or anxiety of influence is allowed to mar the joyous and magnificent uprising of Tunisians and Egyptians to assert and reclaim their dignity in a free and democratic homeland. 

    There is no reason whatsoever to believe that Tunisians or Egyptians will allow such a treacherous kidnapping of their dreams and aspirations by one fanatical ideological absolutism or another. 

    Ideological links

    What we are witnessing in Tunisia and in Egypt today, as we in fact have been over the last two years in Iran, is a people’s democratic will to retrieve their cosmopolitan political culture, wresting it from colonial (Tunisia), imperial (Egypt), or tyrannical (Iran) distortion, deception, and corruption. 

    Even if we are to indulge in the false anxiety of influence, it is crucial to remember the historical fact that Egypt has had far more enduring influence on Iran than the other way around. 

    The entire Islamic ideology that prefigured the Islamist take over of the Iranian Revolution of 1977-1979, was predicated on the ideas of Egyptian thinkers ranging from Muhammad Abduh to Mahmud Shaltut to Sayyid Qutb. That Muhammad Abduh himself was a disciple of Seyyed Jamal al-Din al-Afghani points to the transnational disposition of our political cultures in the region that cannot be colonially fragmented and falsified. 

    But under no circumstances should we be limited in our understanding of the rich and effervescent political cultures of the region to Islamism of one sort or another, for this particular revolutionary politics has never been the only dimension of interaction among ideas and movements in our region. 

    Global hopes

    Anticolonial nationalism extending from Jawaharlal Nehru’s India to Mohammad Mossadegh’s Iran to Gamal Abd al-Nasser’s Egypt to Ahmed Ben Bella and Houari Boumediène’s Algeria (extending all the way to the Cuban revolution) has had catalytic consequences for and on each other beyond any colonially manufactured national boundary. 

    The same is true about revolutionary socialist movements where the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), for example, has had a far-reaching impact on Marxist movements in the region from Nepal to Morocco, from Afghanistan to Yemen. All these cross-metaphorisation of a defiant politics of hope and struggle point to the regional solidarities that have existed and informed these revolutionary uprisings far beyond the colonially manufactured and racialized nationalism of one sort or another. 

    All of this is only if we were to remain limited, and we must not, within the banal sphere of “influence”. Who influenced whom and under what circumstances, is an exercise in colonial futility that constantly pits one group of Arabs or Muslims or Asians or Africans or Latin Americans against each other.

    These divisions can be exacerbated by a mindless nationalism that prevents the clear sight of emerging geopolitics. Until it is realised we as a people will never be liberated from the nasty snare of trying to explain ourselves to “the West”, a figment of an arrested colonial imagination that racialised nationalism keeps perpetuating. 

    We must, once and for all, change our interlocutor, and begin to talk to ourselves. From Tehran to Tunis to Cairo and beyond, our innate cosmopolitan cultures are being retrieved, our hidden worlds discovered, above and beyond any anxiety of influence. 

    Egyptians are now achieving our collective future—for all of us.  It was not destined for Iranians to do this in 2009–but the victory of Tunisians and the triumphant will of the Egyptians in 2011 will have unequivocal consequences for all other democratic and national liberation movements in the region. 

    Hamid Dabashi is the Hagop Kevorkian Professor of Iranian Studies and Comparative Literature at Columbia University.

    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

    Al Jazeera



    How Cyber-Pragmatism Brought Down Mubarak

    Sam Graham-Felsen
    February 11, 2011  

    What caused the uprising in Egypt that swiftly brought down Mubarak’s thirty-year-old regime? Depending on whom you’re listening to, the Internet had either everything or nothing to do with it.

    On one extreme are the so-called “Cyber-Utopians,” who hail Egypt’s revolt as the “Facebook Revolution” and emphasize the role Internet tools played in sparking it over offline organizing by activists. On the other extreme are Malcolm Gladwell, Jon Stewart, Frank Rich and other media figures, whose eagerness to dismiss the Internet’s role has been equally unsubtle. Focusing almost entirely on social conditions in Egypt, these critics have treated the uprising as the inevitable consequence of poverty and human rights abuses.

    Rich has a point: some Western media outlets dwelled on the novelty of social media while under-reporting the longer-term social forces that precipitated protests in Egypt. But others, criticized for having credited the Internet with ushering in the wave of protests in Iran, have downplayed social media’s role in bringing down Mubarak.

    Oppressive social conditions do stoke a common hunger for change; however, a movement isn’t born until a core group of extraordinarily brave activists take that extra step, translating their outrage into public action. The reality is that social movements arise from a combination of conditions and courage.

    What’s been missing in these arguments is a consideration of those early movers. How did they summon the courage to first step into Tahrir Square—and did the Internet embolden them?

    In recent days, a young Google employee from Cairo named Wael Ghonim has emerged as the hero of the protest movement. Ghonim—who was arrested on January 28 and secretly detained until February 7—was the then-anonymous founder of the “We Are All Khaled Said” Facebook page that initially called for and organized the January 25 protest. The page, which honors a 28-year-old from Alexandria who was pulled out of an Internet café and beaten to death by police who suspected him of releasing videos of police corruption online, was launched over six months ago. What started as a campaign against police brutality grew into an online hub for young Egyptians to share their frustrations over the abuses of the Mubarak regime. Among the active early participants in the “We Are All Khaled Said” community were human rights activists and dissident bloggers, many of whom knew one another and had been organizing against Mubarak’s policies for years, and some of whom had endured jail time for their activities.

    Dalia Ziada, a long-time human rights activist and blogger, was one of these core activists. A few years ago, she came across an American comic book from the 1950s that told Martin Luther King’s story. Inspired by the success of King’s nonviolent tactics, she translated the book into Arabic and published it in print and online.

    “MLK was only 29 years old when he launched his campaign and motivated the whole Afro-American community,” Dalia told me. “When people learned about MLK and Gandhi success stories they realized they can do it here too. We have the power to turn our dreams into real tangible facts.” Ziada distributed thousands of print and digital copies of the comic book to her fellow organizers, who took not only inspiration but instruction from the persistence and tactical sophistication of the civil rights movement.

    Over time, hundreds of thousands joined the “We Are All Khaled Said” page, sharing stories of police abuse and posting inspirational YouTube videos and photos, while core organizers pushed them to attend a series of nonviolent “silent stand” protests in public. None of these protests, which took place in June and August of 2010, drew more than a few thousand people.

    But in the wake of the Tunisia uprising—when activists saw that the nonviolent tactics of King and Gandhi had succeeded in a nearby country—Ghonim and his fellow organizers seized on the collective hope. Calling a protest on January 25, activists quickly began distributing downloadable flyers and detailed instruction manuals that included advice on how to counteract tear gas. To ensure greater numbers, organizers promised one another that they would each bring at least ten non-connected people they knew to the protests. They even agreed on messaging tactics in advance. In order to better succeed at recruiting poorer, less-educated Egyptians to join them, they focused on economic issues as a rallying cry, not torture. “We spoke their language,” said Dalia, “not our language as Internet users.”

    “The fact that everything was very organized from the beginning made people feel safe and more willing to participate. For example there were maps to the protest locations and how groups should move and who should be in the front row,” says Dalia. “This gave some sense of safety for the participants. In other words, it was not a random or spontaneous upheaval. No, it was well planned and organized.” This web-based planning was critical, given that the vast majority of people on the “We Are All Khaled Said” page—and those who entered the streets on the 25th—were not veteran human rights activists and bloggers.

    Call it “Cyber-Pragmatism.” The Internet has helped activists like Ziada weave history into the present, to promote examples of nonviolent movements that have succeeded elsewhere, learn from those that failed and rapidly evolve their nonviolent tactics as their own movement progresses.

    When I asked Kamal Sedra, another Egyptian activist and blogger who has been active in the protests, what he and fellow activists have learned since the movement began, he replied, “There are many, many points we learned… this movement will add a lot to nonviolence civil resistance science.”

    Ultimately, activists are developing a kind of movement wiki—one that is being continually re-edited and improved upon by an increasingly expanding web of contributors. In doing so, they have given each other the sense that they just might bend history towards justice.

    It’s worth taking a step back to consider that for most ordinary people living under repressive regimes, nonviolent public protest is an absurd, laughable notion. The risk of being beaten, jailed, tortured or killed—as many Egyptian human rights activists have been over the past three decades—is terrifying. The only way a street protest becomes a remotely tenable proposition is if you know that you’re not alone—that many, many people not only share your anger but share your desire to do something about it. And when you see that your fellow protesters have a plan—that they are knowledgeable, organized and prepared—it gives you the confidence that your participation won’t be in vain. This is why the “We Are All Khaled Said” page—and the online organizing through private Facebook messages, e-mail list serves and Google Docs that sprung out of it—was so important for first-time activists.

    When these young activists took their collective confidence into the streets—in numbers that hadn’t been seen for decades in Egypt—they showed that nonviolent mass mobilization was possible. Only then did the hundreds of thousands of older and non-connected Egyptians, who silently shared their grievances all along, feel compelled to act, too.

    A veteran opposition leader told Sedra, “The youth have done in six days what we’ve been trying to do for thirty years.”

    Egypt’s military rulers dissolve parliament

    AP Photo/Ben Curtis
    Young Egyptians take photographs of themselves standing in front of newly-painted murals on a street leading off from Tahrir Square in downtown Cairo, Egypt. More photos »

    By SARAH EL DEEB, Associated Press Sarah El Deeb, Associated Press – 2 hrs 42 mins ago

    CAIRO – Egypt’s military leaders dissolved parliament and suspended the constitution Sunday, meeting two key demands of protesters who have been keeping up pressure for immediate steps to transition to democratic, civilian rule after forcing Hosni Mubarak out of power.

    The military rulers who took over when Mubarak stepped down Friday and the caretaker government set as a top priority the restoration of security, which collapsed during the 18 days of protests that toppled the regime. The caretaker government held its first meeting since the president was ousted and before it began, workers removed a giant picture of Mubarak from the meeting room.

    The protesters had been pressing the ruling military council, led by Defense Minister Hussein Tantawi, to immediately move forward with the transition by appointing a presidential council, dissolving the parliament and releasing political prisoners.

    “They have definitely started to offer us what we wanted,” said activist Sally Touma, reflecting a mix of caution and optimism among the protesters. Thousands have remained in Cairo’s central Tahrir Square to demand immediate steps by the council such as the repeal of repressive emergency laws that give police broad power.

    The suspension of the constitution effectively puts Egypt under martial law — where the military makes the laws and enforces them in military tribunals. The ruling council is expected to clarify the issue in upcoming statements and the role of civilian courts remains unclear.

    Judge Hisham Bastawisi, a reformist judge, said the latest measures “should open the door for free formation of political parties and open the way for any Egyptian to run for presidential elections” which the constitutional amendments are expected to do.

    Hossam Bahgat, director of the non-governmental Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, said the military’s steps were positive but warned that Egypt was on uncharted legal ground.

    “In the absence of a constitution, we have entered a sort of ‘twilight zone’ in terms of rules, so we are concerned,” he said. “We are clearly monitoring the situation and will attempt to influence the transitional phase so as to respect human rights.”

    The ruling council said it will run the country for six months, or until presidential and parliament elections can be held. It said it was forming a committee to amend the constitution and set the rules for a popular referendum to endorse the amendments.

    Both the lower and upper houses of parliament are being dissolved. The last parliamentary elections in November and December were heavily rigged by the ruling party, virtually shutting out opposition representation.

    The caretaker Cabinet, which was appointed by Mubarak shortly after the pro-democracy protests began on Jan. 25, will remain in place until a new Cabinet is formed — a step that is not expected to happen until after elections. The ruling council reiterated that it would abide by all of Egypt’s international treaties agreed in the Mubarak era, most importantly the 1979 peace treaty with Israel.

    “Our concern now in the Cabinet is security, to bring security back to the Egyptian citizen,” Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq told a news conference after the Cabinet meeting.

    Shafiq said the military would decide whether Omar Suleiman, who was appointed vice president by Mubarak in a failed attempt to appease protesters, would play some role in Egypt’s transition.

    “He might fill an important position in the coming era,” the prime minister said.

    He also denied rumors that Mubarak had fled to the United Arab Emirates, saying the former president remained in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh. He went there just hours after stepping down.

    “In a country like Egypt, with a pharaonic legacy, having no president and no head of state is not easy,” said Amr el-Shobaky, a member of the Committee of Wise Men — a self-appointed group of prominent figures who are allied with the protesters.

    The police, hated for their brutality and corruption under decades-old emergency laws, marched Sunday through Tahrir Square to the Interior Ministry, which oversees them. They demanded better pay and conditions, but also sought to absolve themselves of responsibility for the police’s attempted crackdown at the start of the protests that killed many demonstrators.

    “You have done this inhuman act,” one of the Tahrir protesters said to the police. “We no longer trust you.”

    Hearing the accusations, Said Abdul-Rahim, a low-ranking officer, broke down in tears.

    “I didn’t do it. I didn’t do it,” he implored. “All these orders were coming from senior leaders. This is not our fault. ”

    About 2,000 police demonstrated, at times scuffling with soldiers who tried to disperse them. Some troops fired gunshots in the air, but later withdrew to avoid antagonizing the protesters. A few tanks remained outside the ministry.

    “This is our ministry,” the police shouted. “The people and the police are one hand,” they chanted, borrowing an expression for unity.

    The interior minister, Mahmoud Wagdy, emerged from the building to talk to the police through a megaphone. He said they had a right to be angry.

    “Give me a chance,” he said.

    Separately, Egyptian troops scuffled with holdout protesters in Tahrir Square as the caretaker government sought to impose order, but outbreaks of labor unrest, including the police protest, underscored the challenges of steering Egypt toward stability and democratic rule.

    There were also protests by workers at a ceramic factory, a textile factory and at least two banks as Egyptians emboldened by the autocrat’s fall sought to improve their lot in a country where poverty and other challenges will take years or decades to address.

    Troops took down makeshift tents and made some headway in dispersing protesters who didn’t want to abandon their encampment in Tahrir Square, fearful that the generals entrusted with a transition to democratic rule will not fulfill all their pledges.

    Still, the crowds of protesters were thinning out and traffic moved through the area for the first time. Many local residents shouted at the protesters that it was time to go.

    The crowd on the square, the center of protests during the 18-day uprising, was down from a peak of a quarter-million at the height of the demonstrations to about 10,000 on Sunday.

    The Armed Forces Supreme Council is now the official ruler of Egypt after Mubarak handed it power. It consists of the commanders of each military branch, the chief of staff and Defense Minister Tantawi, who is now the top leader of Egypt.

    The military took power after pleas from protesters, and it has promised to ensure democratic change. The institution, however, was tightly bound to Mubarak’s ruling system, and it has substantial economic interests that it will likely seek to preserve.

    Egypt’s state news agency said banks will be closed Monday due to strikes and Tuesday for a public holiday.


    Associated Press writer Maggie Michael contributed to this report.

    « Back to Home

    « Back to Home

    7 Feb 12 2011 by Linda Herrera
    [Image by Carlos Lattuf] [Image by Carlos Lattuf]

    The call for a Day of Rage on January 25, 2011 that ignited the Egyptian revolution originated from a Facebook page. Many have since asked: Is this a “Facebook Revolution?”  It is high time to put this question to rest and insist that political and social movements belong to people and not to communication tools and technologies. Facebook, like cell phones, the internet, and twitter, do not have agency, a moral universe, and are not predisposed to any particular ideological or political orientation. They are what people make of them. Facebook is no more responsible for Egypt’s revolution than Gutenberg’s printing press with movable type was responsible for the Protestant Reformation in the fifteenth century. But it is valid to say that neither the Reformation nor the pro-democracy rights’ movements sweeping Tunisia, Egypt, Iran, and much of the region would have come about at this juncture without these new tools. Digital communications media have revolutionized learning, cognition, and sociability and facilitated the development of a new generational behavior and consciousness.  And the old guard simply do not get it. 

    Around the globe, far beyond Egypt and Tunisia, we are witnessing a monumental generational rupture taking place around digital literacy, and the coming of age of Generation 2.0. They take for granted interaction, collaboration, and community building on-line. The digital “non-literate” or “semi-literate” tend to be either the very poor lacking means, access to, or time for digital media, or the older generation, the pre-digitals, who do not see the value in changing their communication habits. Many from the pre-digital generation are quick to deride innovations such as Facebook and Twitter as being tools that indulge the egoistic tendencies of the young or which are colossal time wasters. While these critiques hold some validity, they capture only one side, and a small side, of a complex and epic generational sea change that is underway and that is being facilitated—not driven in some inevitable process—by the availability of new communication technologies and social tools.

    A youthful global digital generation is growing in leaps and bounds, and social media, of which Facebook is just one platform, is a decisively important factor in it. Youth use social media for a range of social, academic, political, leisure, personal, creative, sexual, cultural, commercial, and other activities. Some characteristics of this global generation are excessive communication, involving many people in decision making, multitasking, group work, blurring of public and private, sharing, individual expression, and collective identification. Another important distinction between the generations is that the digital generation take what media theorist Clay Shirky calls “symmetrical participation” for granted. In other words, they are not passive recipients of media and messages, as in the days when television and print media ruled, but take for granted that they can play a role in the simultaneous production, consumption, interaction with, and dissemination of on-line content. Youth in the Middle East and North Africa share the features of their global generational counterparts but with some important additions and differences. 

    In politically authoritarian states like Egypt, Tunisia and Iran, youth have been fashioning Facebook into a vibrant and inclusive public square. They also use it to maintain their psychological well being as a space to metaphorically breath when the controls and constrains of the social world become too stifling. A 22 year old blogger and avid  Facebook user explains, “It’s such a release to go on Facebook. I feel so liberated knowing there’s a place I can send my thoughts.”

    The Rise of the “El-Face” Generation

    In October and November 2010 I was in Egypt conducting research with university students in Alexandria and Cairo from diverse social class backgrounds on their media use. Many of them were using a new colloquial term, “El-Face” when talking about Facebook. These Facebook users carry traits of being politically savvy, bold, creative, outward looking, group regulating, and ethical. And their numbers are fast growing. In March 2008 there were some 822,560 users.  After the Arabic version of Facebook was launched in March of 2009 usership jumped. By July 1, 2010 there were some 3,581,460 Facebook members, making for an increase of 357.2% in a two year period. The site has become increasingly Arabized, though many users show dexterity in using both English and Arabic.

    In the months running up to the parliamentary elections in November 2010 there was much speculation about a possible shut down of Facebook. Adult pundits in the more mainstream media (semi-governmental newspapers, popular Arabic television talk shows) took up the cause of Facebook. They expressed their paternalistic concern about the potentially corrupting force of Facebook on the youth in a familiar moral panic mode. On her popular television talk show, for instance, Hala Sarhan lamented the lawlessness of Facebook, asserting it to be a dangerously free zone in need of restrictions. Others argued that without adult supervision, youth could be lured and tricked by dangerous elements into sedition (fitna). They worried Facebook was fueling sectarian tensions between Christians and Muslims that could lead to violence.

    These public Facebook experts are mainly sexagenarian and septuagenarian educators, policy makers, government officials, and academics of a pre-digital age. They are using a pre-digital political cognition and institutional understanding to discuss new media today, and they are direly off the mark. Drawing on older understandings of the media they view Facebook as the new space of ideological control, the place to capture the minds and hearts of the citizens; like state television but accessible through the internet. Some of them are sincere in their worry that dangerous elements, like radicals and criminals, will try to befriend youth on Facebook and lure them in subversive activities. Others are clearly more interested in maintaining raw power and want to find effective ways to keep youth in their fold and under their thumbs. The ones vying to maintain control of the youth reason that if youth are spending time on Facebook, then all the government needs to do is go in and set up its propaganda machinery there, capture and control the hearts and minds of youth on Facebook, it’s that simple. The government has established a presence on Facebook, though a somewhat pitiful one, setting up pages for the National Democratic Party (158 people “like” it), Gamal Mubarak (the page has been removed since the uprising), Hosni Mubarak, and other government figures and causes. But these are not picking up traction. The youth are not buying it, and the more the regime people interlope into Facebook the more they lose legitimacy.

    The community of “El-Face” is developing a cultural, political, and ethical universe of its own. It has its own codes and is a regulated space to some degree. There are certain red lines, as Hoda and Amir, both 21 year old university students at Alexandria University, that should not be crossed: you should not use the space to insult each other’s religion, for pornography or sexual harassment, for advertising or selling things, for spreading false rumors, or for spying. When a Facebook friend crosses these lines others intervene by way of posting a corrective comment on their wall, starting a conversation on the post in question, or by defriending them. 

    Last October many youth were worried that the government would close down Facebook.  In discussions with a group of students from the Political Science department at Cairo University, they explained that the government feared the flurry of critical political activity that would invariably precede an election. Though many expressed that turning off Facebook would be akin to suffocating them, as one young man put it, it would be like  “blocking the air to my lungs”, they insisted they would not ease up on their pre-election Facebook activities. These included  mocking the president, his son, the system, and the whole electoral process. They stood defiant. A 21 year old female student proclaimed, “We don’t care! We’re not afraid of them. What are they going to do, arrest millions of us?” 

    Their Facebook activities also included a commitment to demanding justice for the brutal killing of one of their own, Khaled Said. It was striking last October how every youth I encountered in and out of the university was talking about Khaled Said. His story, which came out of Facebook, not Al-Jazeera, the newspaper, or any other media, has by now received much international coverage. The events leading to Khaled’s killing originated when he supposedly posted a video of two police officers allegedly dividing the spoils of a drug bust. This manner of citizen journalism has become commonplace and youth are getting more emboldened to expose the festering corruption of a police force that acts with impunity. On June 6, 2010, as Khaled Said was sitting in an internet café in Alexandria, two police officers entered and asked him for his I.D.. He refused to produce it and they proceeded to drag him away and allegedly sadistically beat him to his death as he pleaded for his life in the view of witnesses. The officers claimed that Khaled died of suffocation after swallowing a packet of drugs. His family released a photograph to an activist of the broken, bloodied, and disfigured face from Khaled’s corpse. This photo, and a portrait of the gentle soft skinned face of the living Khaled, went viral. The power of photographic evidence combined with eyewitness accounts and popular knowledge of police brutality left no doubt in anyone’s mind that he was senselessly and brutally murdered by police officers, the very people who are supposed to act in the interest of public safety.

    A Facebook page, “We are all Khaled Said” was set up and we now know that activists from the Facebook group 6 of April Youth Movement, and Google executive Wael Ghoneim who is becoming a national hero as instigator of the Day of Rage (see below), were involved in this. The page led to a movement, first for justice to bring the killers to court to pay for their crime, and then, something much bigger. On the heels of the Tunisian revolution and fleeing of the dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, the “We are all Khaled Said” group called for a Day of Rage, a march against “Torture, Corruption, Poverty and Unemployment” for January 25,  2011, the date the Regime designated to “celebrate” the police. Scores of Facebook users changed their profile pages to show their support for this march. Below are some of the samples of their profiles pictures.


    The uprising took off in a way that no one anticipated. On January 27, Facebook, along with telephones and internet, went off. Nevertheless the revolution grew and persisted. When the internet came back up on February 2 there was a conspicuous fluttering of pro-Mubarak profile pictures scattered around college students’ friends’ lists that had the uncanny look of iron curtain style propaganda posters.  Though this is pure speculation, it is highly likely that a committee from the Ministry of Information got together to try to decipher how to infiltrate and conquer Facebook. Operating on a pre-digital mindset, they designed and released a poster about 25 January to appropriate the Day of Rage and rewrite history. That poster (Image #4) reads: “Day of Allegiance to the Leader and Commander. We are all with you and our hearts are with you. The campaign for Mubarak, Security for Egypt.”


    Another profile photo which showed up among university students after the blackout was one that reads:  “With all my heart I love you Egypt, and I love you oh President.”


    These posters lacked the spontaneity, show of emotion, creativity of the other profile posters, and smelled of infiltrators, something not well tolerated in the Facebook public square. This pitiable attempt to turn back history and try to capture the allegiance of youth through manipulating Facebook was a sign of how desperately out of touch the regime has become. It is also indicative that it has lost its grip on the ideological state apparatuses, and once that occurs there is nothing left at its disposal but the use of force; or surrender.

    Within three days these images of 25 of January as a day of loyalty to the President disappeared from Facebook. On Feburary 8, a new profile photo among Egyptian youth began spreading spontaneously. It was the image of one of their own, Wael Ghoneim, on the day of his release after twelve days disappearance (he was detained by police). The image is from a game-changing interview conducted with him on February 7, 2011 on a satellite channel. This interview, where he admits to organizing the initial protest, set to rest doubts that the revolution was the plot of enemy foreign agents. His display of emotion for the martyrs of the revolution touched the nation, and beyond. That may very well have been the nail in the coffin of the state’s media wars.

    What is happening in Egypt is not a Facebook Revolution. But it could not have come about without the Facebook generation, generation 2.0, who are taking, and with their fellow citizens, making history

    Een overzichtje van de NOS:
  • Dag 20: Tahrirplein langzaam leeg
  • Dag 19: De day-after
  • Dag 18: Vaarwel Vrijdag
  • Dag 17: Mubarak toch niet weg
  • Dag 12: Rustige dag
  • Dag 11: Dag van vertrek
  • Dag 10: Geweld tegen buitenlandse journalisten
  • Dag 9: Geweld
  • Dag 8: Miljoenen demonstranten op straat
  • Dag 7: Protest in Egypte
  • Dag 6: Protest in Egypte
  • Dag 5: Opnieuw protesten in Egypte
  • Dag 4: Dag van de woede
  • Een samenvattende documentaire van Al-Jazeera English

    Published on The Nation (http://www.thenation.com)

    Saudi Arabia’s Fear of Egypt

    Robert Dreyfuss | February 13, 2011

    Not surprisingly, many American media reports have focused on the impact of the  revolution in Egypt on Israel, whose security policy is centered on the three-decade-old peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. But the country that really ought to be worried is Saudi Arabia

    Throughout the entire period of Egypt’s uprising, Saudi Arabia disparaged the rebels, backed ex-President Mubarak, and called for “stability.” No wonder. For Saudi Arabia, a reborn Egypt is their worst nightmare. Think of it like this: imagine Saudi Arabia as a wealthy, gated community, whose lavish homes are built behind stone walls, with swimming pools and tennis courts. But next door—right next door, just outside the gates—is Egypt, a vast and sprawling slum, whose residents jealously catch glimpses of the kleptocrats next door as they board jets for Dubai and the French Riviera. Now you understand why Saudi Arabia might be worried.

    But Egypt, the new Egypt, might turn out to be angry at Saudi Arabia, because of the kingdom’s unabashed support for the fallen Mubarak. And an angry Egypt might help—overtly, covertly or just by example—to undermine the stability of the Saudi royal family. Consider some history.

    For decades, Saudi Arabia has invested billions of dollars to neuter and neutralize Egypt. In the 1950s and 1960s, President Gamal Abel Nasser and his all-powerful Voice of the Arabs radio station thundered against Saudi corruption and greed. Back then, Egypt supported a group called the Free Princes who rebelled against the royal family’s grip on power. And from 1962–69 Egypt fought a proxy war against Saudi Arabia in Yemen, with Egypt backing republican rebels and the Saudis, naturally, backing the reactionaries. So when Nasser died in 1970 and Anwar Sadat succeeded him, the Saudis moved in strongly behind Sadat, helping the upstart leader crush Egypt’s Nasserists, socialists and communists. Helping Sadat was the right-wing Muslim Brotherhood, which had been suppressed by Nasser but unleashed by Sadat. Kamal Adham, the head of Saudi intelligence, who was also a business partner with Sadat’s corrupt wife, brought the leaders of the Brotherhood back to Egypt in 1971, and the Saudis bankrolled Sadat as he kicked out 20,000 Soviet troops, launch the 1973 Ramadan War and used the Brotherhood to smash the left on campuses and in Egypt’s professional societies.

    But now that Egypt is flexing its muscles, the Saudis are panicking.

    For Arab nationalists, the story is always the same: Arab countries with populations, but no oil—such as Egypt, Syria and Jordan—must join with Arab countries with oil but no people, such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE. Coupling the gulf states’ resources with the intellectual capital of Cairo, Damascus and the Palestinians is the quickest way to progress for the Arabs. But then United States, and earlier, for the UK, helping the gated

    communities of the gulf stave off the demands of their poorer cousins has been a central plank of Western foreign policy since the cold war.

    Things may be changing.

    As the New York Times reported last week [1], “It was no coincidence that the most outspoken proponents of Mr. Mubarak’s rule were Israel and Saudi Arabia who, with Egypt, formed the spine of American dominance in the region.” During the crisis, US officials received [2] “daily calls from Israel, Saudi Arabia and others who feared an Egypt without Mr. Mubarak would destabilize the entire region.” Whenever they got the chance, the Saudis told the United States to avoid undermining Mubarak [3].

    The Saudis fumed and raged and protested. When rumors surfaced that the United States might cut off its military aid to Egypt, amounting to about $1.3 billion a year, Saudi Arabia told President Obama that it would step in [4] and replace US cash [5] without blinking, and the ailing king of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah, reportedly [6] told Obama so directly in a “testy” January 29 phone call.

    The Saudis didn’t hide their anger at the United States. Prince Saud, the foreign minister, openly blasted [7] the “flagrant interference of some countries,” meaning the United States, in Egypt’s crisis, in what the Wall Street Journal said [8] “was interpreted as a rare attack on US policy.” King Abdullah, mad as hell, vilified the protesters [7], saying “some infiltrators, in the name of freedom of expression, have infiltrated into the brotherly people of Egypt, to destabilize its security and stability.” And Prince Saud elaborated [8] with another direct attack on Obama’s support for the revolution: “We are astonished at what we see as interference in the internal affairs of Egypt by some countries. We are shocked to see that there are countries pre-empting even the will of the Egyptian people.” By “countries,” of course, Saud meant the United States.

    There are early signs of unrest in Saudi Arabia, too, though it is far from clear that conditions in the kingdom are conducive to a revolt along the lines of Tunisia’s or Egypt’s. Still, as Steven Stills might say [9], “Somethin’s happenin’ here.” On January 28, about 50 Saudis held a brief protest [10] in Jeddah, and on February 7, some fifty women demonstrated [10] outside the ministry of the interior to protest detentions of male relatives, while ten “professors, businessmen and religious scholars” petitioned [10] to create a moderate Islamist political party. According to Reuters, the founders of the proto-political party said, in a letter to King Abdullah: “You know well what big political development and improvement of freedom and human rights is currently happening in the Islamic world. It’s time to bring this development to the kingdom.” One of the signers of the letter, lawyer Abdul-Aziz al-Wahhabi, said: “You cannot just have the royal party governing the country. We want to raise this issue with government officials and persuade them.”

    Social networking sites are buzzing [8] in Saudi Arabia. Anwar Eshki, the director of the Middle East Institute for Strategic Studies in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, said [11]: “The Arab leaders are in a race against time: either they quickly adopt liberal changes, or they suffer the same fate as [the leaders] of Tunisia and Egypt.”

    Time will tell.

    On Friday, at a conference sponsored by the New America Foundation, I asked Shibly Telhami if Saudi Arabia ought to be worried about an angry Egypt. “Every single government in the Arab world is nervous,” he said. He suggested that Saudi Arabia will try to manage the Egyptian revolt. “Their first attempt will be to coopt it. That’s how they deal with uncertainties. They’re shocked, and surprised, and they’re reassessing.”

    It remains to be seen, of course, if the Egyptians want to be coopted.

    Like this Blog Post? Read it on the Nation’s free iPhone App, NationNow. [12]

    Source URL: http://www.thenation.com/blog/158523/saudi-arabias-fear-egypt


    [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/world/middleeast/12revolution.html?scp=3&amp;sq=saudi egypt&amp;st=cse

    [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/world/middleeast/13diplomacy.html?scp=7&amp;sq=saudi egypt&amp;st=cse

    [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/world/middleeast/09diplomacy.html?_r=1&amp;ref=saudiarabia

    [4] http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/7469098.cms

    [5] http:// http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/09/saudi-arabia-considers-matching-u-s-military-aid-to-egypt/

    [6] http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2011/02/09/saudis-told-obama-not-humiliate-mubarak

    [7] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-12/saudi-arabia-hopes-egyptian-army-restores-stability-to-country.html

    [8] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703786804576138321598498188.html

    [9] http://www.lyrics007.com/Stephen Stills Lyrics/For What It’s Worth Lyrics.html

    [10] http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/937967–will-the-house-of-saud-adapt-enough-to-survive-again?bn=1

    [11] http:// http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/arab-regimes-must-change-or-face-revolt-analysts/articleshow/7488701.cms

    [12] http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/nationnow/id399704758?mt=8



    Bahrain activists hold Day of Rage


    Reports of violence from parts of the kingdom as security forces remain on alert during day of protests.

    Last Modified: 14 Feb 2011 09:53 GMT
    Activists are demanding reforms, better human rights and an end to discrimination [Sara Hassan] 

    Small-scale clashes have been reported from parts of Bahrain amid heightened security over planned protests by the kingdom’s Shia Muslim majority.

    Protesters had called for a Day of Rage to be observed on Monday, inspired by anti-government uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia.

    Helicopters circled over the capital Manama, where protesters were expected to gather in the afternoon, and there was greater police presence in Shia villages.

    At least 14 people were injured in clashes overnight and on Monday, news agencies reported.

    Khalid Al-Marzook, a Bahraini member of parliament, told Al Jazeera that one person was killed and three others in critical condition in hospital following the clashes.

    News agency reports said police used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse marchers in the mostly Shia village of Newidrat in the southwest region of the island kingdom – a key Western ally. The marchers were demanding the release of those detained during earlier protests.

    Nabeel Rajab of the Bahrain Centre for human rights told Al Jazeera: “We are only asking for political reforms, right of political participation, respect for human rights, stopping of systematic discrimination against Shias.

    “All the demands are to do with human rights and nothing to do with the ruling family and their regime.”

    However, he warned that if the government resorted to violence then the people might be forced to even demand for a regime change.

    “We call on all Bahraini people – men, women, boys and girls – to share in our rallies in a peaceful and civilised way to guarantee a stable and promising future for ourselves and our children,” activists said in a statement issued on Twitter.

    Marginalised Shias

    The Bahraini ruling family had offered cash payouts in the run-up to the protest to prevent Shia discontent from bubbling over as popular revolts spread in the Arab world.

    Diplomats say Bahrain’s demonstrations, organised on the social media websites Facebook and Twitter, will be a gauge of whether a larger base of Shias can be drawn on to the streets. The big test will be if demonstrations take hold in Manama, where demonstrations are rare.

    Shias account for 70 per cent of the population but they allege discrimination at the hands of Bahrain’s Sunni rulers.

    Big protests in the Gulf Arab island state could embolden other marginalised Shias in nearby Saudi Arabia, political analysts say.

    There was no immediate comment from Bahraini authorities.

    Police clashed late on Sunday with residents in Karzakan village, where security forces regularly skirmish with Shia youths, and one protester was injured, witnesses said. Police said three officers were hurt.


    Palestinian cabinet resigns


    President Mahmoud Abbas re-assigns Salam Fayyad, who also resigned, to form new government.

    Last Modified: 14 Feb 2011 08:59 GMT
    The PA, led by Mahmoud Abbas, has announced it wants legislative and presidential elections by September [EPA] 

    The cabinet of the Palestinian Authority (PA) led by Salam Fayyad, the prime minister, has resigned and President Mahmoud Abbas has accepted the resignations, officials have said.

    Following the resignations on Monday, Abbas re-assigned Fayyad to form the new government.

    Abbas directed Fayyad to consult with different Palestinian factions, institutions and members of the civil society. He thanked Fayyad and the members of his ex-cabinet for their efforts.

    The resignations came amid calls for reform in the Arab world, triggered by the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president, after a popular revolt.

    The shake-up was long demanded by Fayyad and some in Abbas’ Fatah faction. 

    “The cabinet resigned today and the formation of a new cabinet will take place as soon as possible,” Ali Jarbawi, minister of planning, told Reuters news agency.

    An analyst told Al Jazeera: “For the past 50 years, people have been living in fear of their leaders but now the leaders are living in fear of the people, this is incredibly telling of the situation across the region.”

    ‘Backroom bargaining’

    Al Jazeera’s Cal Perry, reporting from Ramallah, said: “The new government will take shape over the next two weeks, it will be interesting to see which Fatah members take which portfolio.

    “Some of the most powerful portfolios include, the foreign ministry, the justice ministry, the interior ministry…these are the ones that we will see some backroom bargaining for.”

    Monday’s development follows the resignation of Saeb Erekat, the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s chief negotiator, on Saturday, after it emerged that the source of the Palestine Papers, a set of leaked documents that was released by Al Jazeera, was in his own office.

    The leaks showed the concessions that Palestinian negotiators were willing to grant to Israel, contrary to their public posture.

    Bankrolled by international donors and engaged in security co-ordination with Israel, the Palestinian Authority has a limited mandate in the occupied West Bank. It lost control of the Gaza Strip to rival group, Hamas, in a 2007 civil war.

    Abbas’ credibility has been further sapped by long-stalled negotiations with Israel on an accord founding a Palestinian state. Hamas spurns permanent co-existence with the Jewish state.

    Of the 24 posts in Fayyad’s outgoing cabinet, only 16 were staffed. Two ministers resigned and six are marooned in Gaza. Of those present in the cabinet, some face allegations of incompetence.

    The PA announced on Saturday it would seek new legislative and presidential elections by September.

    Hamas has rejected the call and said it would not take part in the poll, nor recognise the results. 

    Al Jazeera and agencies

    Clashes reported in Iran protests


    Pro-reformist marches under way in Tehran despite heavy security presence and police crackdown.

    Last Modified: 14 Feb 2011 19:36 GMT
    Tear gas was used to scatter protesters at various points during Monday’s banned protests in Tehran [AFP] 

    A day of protest in Tehran, the the Iranian capital, have been marked by clashes between demonstrators and security forces.

    Thousands protesters marched on Monday on Enghelab and Azadi streets [which connect and create a straight path through the city centre], with a heavy presence in Enghelab Square and Vali-Asr Street.

    Quoting witnesses, the AP news wire reported that least three protesters injured by bullets were taken to a hospital in central Tehran, while dozens more were hospitalised because of severe wounds as a result of being beaten.

     Protesters burn a picture of the late Ayatollah Khomeini and Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Hoseyni Khamenei. The demonstrators can be heard to chant “Mubarak, Ben Ali, now it’s Seyyed Ali’s turn.”  


    Al Jazeera’s Dorsa Jabbari, reporting from Tehran, confirmed reports that security forces used tear gas, pepper spray and batons against the protesters.

    As with other foreign media, she was prohibited by government order to witness the demonstrations.

    Jabbari said that she had received reports that up to 10,000 security personnel had been deployed to prevent protesters from gathering at Azadi Square, where the marches, originating from various points in Tehran, were expected to converge.

    The AFP news agency reported that police fired paintball bullets on protesters.

    One video, posted on Youtube (claiming to be from Monday’s protests) shows people chanting, “political prisoners must be freed.” A woman then cries that tear gas has been deployed, dispersing the crowd.

    On the Facebook page used to organise the marches, there were also reports of shooting in or around Enghelab Square, as well as demonstrations in the cities of Mashhad, Shiraz and Kermanshah.

    Cashes between police and demonstrators – resulting in dozens of arrests – took place in Isfahan, the country’s third largest city.

    Twitter and Facebook posts said Mir Hossein Mousavi, the opposition leader and former presidential candidate, and his wife, Zahrah Rahnavard, had joined one of the marches.

    Mehdi Karroubi, the other prominent opposition leader, is still under house arrest.

    Al Jazeera was unable to confirm whether Mousavi and Rahnavard had joined the protest, and at last report, Kaleme.com, a pro-reformist website, said that security forces had prevented the couple from leaving their home.

    Next move

    As night fell in Iran, the BBC reported that city lights were being turned off and that security forces were attacking protesters in the dark.

    While many of the protesters reflected on the day’s marches on Twitter and Facebook, Youtube videos show that hundreds were still on the streets after dark, setting fire to rubbish bins and barricades, chanting anti-government slogans.

    Monday’s marches were organised as a one-day event and it is unclear if further protests will take place overnight or tomorrow.

    A message on posted by the organisers of the demonstrations posted on the 25 Bahman Facebook site – the site’s title reflecting today’s date on the Iranian calendar – seemed to indicate that there might be more protests.

    “The 25 Bahman group will try to announce the programme for of protests for tonight and tomorrow shortly,” it read.

    “Please stand by via any means of communication you have. We are victorious.” 

    Government response

    The current security clampdown is reminiscent of the one that crushed a wave of protests after the disputed re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, in June 2009.

    Opposition supporters revived a tactic from the 2009 protests, shouting “Allahu Akbar” or God is Great, and “Death to the dictator”, from rooftops and balconies on Monday in a sign of defiance towards Iran’s leadership.

    Several opposition activists and aides to Mousavi and Karroubi have been arrested in recent days.

    Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, hailed the “courage” of the protesters, and pressed Tehran to follow Egypt’s example and “open up” its political system.

    Our correspondent in the capital said that as far as Iran’s leaders are concerned, Monday’s protests “are not a reflection of what people actually want”.

    They believe these are small groups of individuals who have ulterior motives, they are a threat to national security and therefore the security forces are necessary to prevent them from becoming a threat inside the country,” said Jabbari.

    Amnesty International, the London-based human rights group, criticised Iranian authorities for opposing Monday’s protests and making dozens of arrests, saying the crackdown was aimed at blocking the work of activists and stifling dissent.

    “Iranians have a right to gather to peacefully express their support for the people of Egypt and Tunisia,” said Hassiba Hadj-Sahraoui, Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa deputy director.

    “While the authorities have a responsibility to maintain public order, this should be no excuse to ban and disperse protests by those who choose to exercise that right.”

    There was no mention of Monday’s demonstrations on state-run television stations or websites.

    Instead, one station replayed interviews it did with those who attended the march celebrating the 32nd anniversary of the Islamic revolution on Friday.

    Al Jazeera is not responsible for the content of external websites.

    Al Jazeera and Agenices


    En ontluisterend protret van Hosni Mubarak (via de site van Stan van Houcke ):

    Hosni Mubarak’s Final Tragedy

    by Christopher Dickey Info

     Christopher Dickey is Newsweek magazine’s Paris bureau chief and Middle East editor. He is the author of six books, including Summer of Deliverance, and most recently Securing the City: Inside America’s Best Counterterror Force—the NYPD.

    Christopher Dickey

    Hosni Mubarak and his family were convinced everything they did was for the good of Egypt and never understood that it was time for them to leave, writes Christopher Dickey in this week’s Newsweek.

    The night before he finally stepped down as Egypt’s president, the protesters in Tahrir Square heard Hosni Mubarak deliver his final address as their head of state. “A speech from a father to his sons and daughters,” he called it, and like many of his orations in the past, it was filled with lies, although he may have believed some of these himself. He would stay as president until September, he promised, because the country needed him for a transition to democracy. This, after three decades of autocracy. The hundreds of thousands gathered in the square wanted to hear him say only one word: “Goodbye.” Amid their screams of fury, one woman could be heard shouting into a phone, “People are sick of the soap opera!”

    The protesters had reason to be weary of the president’s final, delusional public performance. But there was another long drama coming to an end that night, mostly out of public view—a personal story that helps to explain the president whose stubborn incomprehension of his “sons and daughters” dragged Egypt so close to ruin. Former U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Daniel Kurtzer has called it the “tragedy” of the Mubaraks. As Kurtzer says of the Egyptian president, “He really did feel he was the only one holding the dike”—as if beyond Mubarak lay the deluge.

    Mubarak’s fall is not a story like the one that unfolded in Tunisia, of a dictator and his kin trying to take their country for all it was worth. Although there have been widely reported but poorly substantiated allegations of a $40 billion to $70 billion fortune amassed by the Mubarak family, few diplomats in Egypt find those tales even remotely credible. “Compared to other kleptocracies, I don’t think the Mubaraks rank all that high,” says one Western envoy in Cairo, asking not to be named on a subject that remains highly sensitive. “There has been corruption, [but] as far as I know it’s never been personally attached to the president and Mrs. Mubarak. They don’t live an elaborate lifestyle.”

    On the contrary, vanity more than venality was the problem at the top in Egypt. Despite the uprising of millions of people in Egypt’s streets, despite their ringing condemnations of secret-police tactics and torture, the Mubarak family remained convinced that everything the president had done was for the country’s own good. “We’re gone. We’re leaving,” the deeply depressed first lady, Suzanne Mubarak, told one of her confidantes as the crisis worsened last week. “We’ve done our best.”

    When Mubarak’s beloved grandson died, he no longer enjoyed his work or his position or his future, but he held on anyway. He had come to believe that no one could replace him.

    Article - Dickey Mubarak Former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

    The man at the heart of the story, the patriarch, had never imagined he would hold the presidency—and when that came true, he couldn’t imagine it ending. As commander of the Egyptian air force, he had been a hero of the 1973 war against Israel, so when President Anwar Sadat summoned him to the palace in 1975, he thought maybe he was going to be rewarded with a diplomatic post, but no more than that. (Friends say Suzanne told him to try to get a nice one in Europe.) Instead, Sadat named him vice president. And on Oct. 6, 1981, as Sadat and Mubarak sat side by side watching a military parade, radical Islamists opened fire, killing Sadat and making Mubarak the most powerful man in the land. Egypt was a different country in those days, one where the government’s lies to the people went unquestioned and the police routinely intimidated the public into submission. The only television was state television, and the primary contact with the outside world was via sketchy phone lines. Some international calls had to be booked days in advance. As Mubarak’s reaction to the protests made clear, he failed to understand how the country had changed in 30 years.

    Peter Beinart: America’s Proud Egypt Moment

    Niall Ferguson Blasts Obama’s Egypt DebacleHis partner in the family tragedy was Suzanne Mubarak, the daughter of a Welsh nurse and an Egyptian doctor, who married Hosni when he was a young air force flight instructor and she was only 17. By the time she was in her late thirties, when her boys were teenagers and her husband was vice president, she set about reinventing herself as a social activist in Egypt and on the international stage. “Suzanne is 10 times smarter than her husband,” says Barbara Ibrahim of the Civic Engagement Center at the American University of Cairo. “She’s got nuance, she’s got sophistication.” As Egypt’s first lady, she helped to bring dozens of nongovernmental organizations to the country to try to improve Egyptian life. More than her husband and more than his inner circle of intelligence officers and military men, Suzanne had a sense of the world outside the palace.

    But she also had ambitions within it. None too secretly, Suzanne guided the fortunes of her children and grandchildren, looking to establish a political dynasty that might endure for generations. The older son, Alaa, is a businessman who prefers soccer to the game of politics—a fact that has brought him occasional surges of popularity over the years as a big-name, big-mouthed fan of Egypt’s national team. The younger son, the handsome, aloof Gamal, was for years the apparently anointed but undeclared heir to the presidential palace. When writing about his rise, British tabloids never failed to mention the pharaohs’ ancient dynasties. Gamal himself, half-joking with friends and acquaintances even as he ritualistically denied presidential aspirations, preferred to speak of the Kennedys, the Bushes, and the Clintons.

    But in the spring of 2009, the family’s plans and strategies unraveled. The turning point came with the death of a child.

    As the year opened, the 80-year-old Mubarak appeared firmly in control. America had a new president, Barack Obama, but Mubarak knew about U.S. presidents. He had seen four of them come and go, every one convinced that Mubarak was the only man in Egypt who could keep the biggest population in the Arab world quiet, extremists at bay, and his army at peace with Israel. Even after the Bush administration’s brief push to democratize the Arab world, Egypt’s seemingly eternal president looked as solid as the Sphinx. The old man’s great joy in life—what put a smile on that stony face and kept him going—was his 12-year-old grandson, Mohamed, the first-born son of Alaa. A dark-haired, dark-eyed charmer, Mohamed often appeared with the president in official palace photographs. The cover of Hosni Mubarak’s official biography showed him seated with toddling Mohamed, about 2, standing in front of him. Another palace picture showed the well-groomed little Mohamed a few years later talking on the phone as if playing president. At soccer matches he sat at his grandfather’s side. In mid-May of 2009, the boy spent the weekend with gidu Hosni (grandfather Hosni) and grandmama Suzanne, as he had done many times before. But when Mohamed went home to his parents the next day, he started to complain of a pain in his head. And then he slipped into a coma.

    Mohamed died a few days later in a Paris hospital, reportedly from a cerebral hemorrhage. The devastated Egyptian president canceled a planned trip to visit Obama in Washington and could not even bring himself to attend Mohamed’s funeral. When Obama flew to Cairo a few days later to deliver a landmark speech to the Arab and Muslim world, Mubarak did not attend. And the Egyptian people, as sentimental as any on earth, regarded their president’s heartbreak with deep sympathy. Israeli journalist Smadar Peri remembers people in Egypt’s streets clamoring to speak with reporters, wishing only to express their condolences. “We are one family, and Mubarak is everyone’s father,” they told her.

    “That was a moment of glory,” a close friend of the Mubarak family recalls. “If the president had stepped down, people would have begged him to stay.” But Mubarak did not step down. Amid speculation that he was losing his grip, that he was literally dying of a broken heart, he stayed. Peri, who interviewed Mubarak a few weeks later, told me afterward that he had lost none of his mental capacity, but that the spark behind his eyes was gone. He no longer enjoyed his work or his position or his future, but he held on anyway. It was then, as much as last week, that he first failed to see a way out. He had come to believe that no one could replace him, not even Gamal.

    The president’s younger son had spent nearly a decade studying the art of politics in his father’s ruling National Democratic Party ever since returning from London, where he had worked for Bank of America and then run his own company, Medinvest. He imported organizational ideas and administrative techniques from abroad, especially from Britain’s Labour Party. (“Tony Blair has taken more vacations in Egypt than God,” a friend of the family notes in passing.)

    The scheme might have worked except for one thing: Gamal was not a politician. “Gamal is a nerd,” says Ziad Aly, a mobile-communications entrepreneur and an old schoolmate of the Mubarak boys from the American University in Cairo. “He was a very clever type of 4.0 student. And he continued to be clever all his life. He reads a lot. He learns a lot. And Gamal was a good investment banker. He was always at it.”

    Hier verder lezen


  • Van Zolder
  • Cor Galis over radio
  • Zeldzaam en zonderling
  • Instituut Idzerda
  • Interview met de Egyptische schrijfster Nawal El Saadawi

    Geplaatst op 11 februari 2011 door Nienke Feis onder Zonder categorie


    Bij de demonstraties op het Tahrirplein in Cairo tegen het bewind van de Egyptische president Mubarak bevond zich ook de inmiddels bijna 80-jarige Egyptische schrijfster Nawal El Saadawi. Al in de zomer van 2010 voorspelde ze al dat een breed volksverzet tegen Mubarak op  gang zou komen.

    Villa VPRO van 20 augustus 1980 zond een interview uit met Saadawi: arts, gyneacologe, psychiater, politiek activiste en schrijfster. Haar boeken waren in de meeste Arabische landen verboden, maar werden overal gelezen. Aanleiding voor dit interview was het verschijnen van haar nieuwste boek ‘De gesluierde Eva’, over de positie van de vrouw in islamitische landen.

    Het interview met haar vindt plaats op de Vrouwenconferentie in Kopenhagen, waar ze workshops leidt over cliterodectomi (vrouwenbesnijdenis).

    Beluister het interview met Saadawi, gemaakt door Kiki Amsberg:

    Interview terugluisteren op de site  Grote aanrader!

    Hier twee artikelen uit het feministische tijdschrift Ozij over Nawal al-Saadawi (http://www.opzij.nl/Nieuws-Opinie/Nieuws-Opinie-Artikel/Egyptisch-feministe-Nawal-Al-Saadawivoorspelde-revolutie-via-twitter-en-internet.htm):

    Egyptisch feministe Nawal Al Saadawi

    voorspelde revolutie via twitter en internet

    Vorige zomer deed de Egyptische feministe Nawal Al Saadawi al een oproep aan jongeren uit de hogere en middenklasse om hun sociale netwerken en internet in te schakelen om democratische veranderingen in Egypte door te zetten.

    Al Saadawi is een activiste die met vooruitziende blik een half jaar geleden al wist dat de werkelijke veranderingen onder het volk zouden plaats vinden. In de opmars naar de verkiezingen in september liepen de gemoederen toen al hoog op. ‘Jongeren die handig met internet zijn zullen eerder liberale veranderingen bewerkstelligen dan de huidige machthebbers,’ zei Al Saadawi. Zij denkt niet dat de veranderingen zullen komen van de huidige regeringspartij, het Moslim Broederschap of zelfs maar van voormalig nucleaire waakhond Mohammed El Baradei. ‘De veranderingen zullen komen van jongeren die met hun netwerken campagne gaan voeren.’

    Daar lijkt zij nu gelijk in te krijgen.

    Na de onafgebroken demonstraties en protesten van de afgelopen dagen verwacht de oppositie dinsdag 1 februari een demonstratie van meer dan een miljoen mensen op de been te krijgen. Wat er dan met Moebarak zal gebeuren blijft onzeker. Gevreesd wordt dat de 82-jarige president de macht zal overdragen aan zijn zoon Gamal, die nu al een vooraanstaande positie heeft in de regeringspartij. Dankzij het internet en de sociale netwerken kunnen alle mensen die zich tegen de regering keren organiseren. ‘Zij kunnen het land veranderen,’ aldus Nawal Al Saadawi, die zelf in de jaren zeventig gevangen werd gezet onder het bewind van Moebarak omdat zij zich uitsprak tegen vrouwenbesnijdenis.

    Egyptisch Feministe:

    ‘Gebruik internet voor democratische verandering’

    De verkiezingen voor een nieuwe president zijn pas volgend jaar september in Egypte. Maar nu al lopen de gemoederen hoog op als het gaat om de opvolger van de huidige president Hosni Moebarak. Moebarak is inmiddels 82 jaar en als sinds 1981 aan de macht in het dichtst bevolkte land van de Arabische wereld.

    Volgens activiste Nawal Al Saadawi is het ‘time for a change’. En die verandering zal komen van hoogopgeleide jongeren die hun sociale netwerken op internet inzetten om mensen te mobiliseren. ‘Jongeren die handig met internet zijn zullen eerder liberale veranderingen bewerkstelligen dan de huidige machthebbers,’ meent Saadawi. Volgens haar zullen de veranderingen niet van de huidige regeringspartij komen, niet van het conservatieve Moslim Broederschap en zelfs niet van de voormalige UN nucleaire waakhond Mohamed El Baradei, die ook een campagne begonnen is voor constitutionele verandering.

    El Baradei is volgens haar te lang weg uit het land om ook maar iets te bewerkstelligen. ‘Ik begrijp niet dat iemand die zijn hele leven in het buitenland heeft gewoond denkt dat hij hier terug kan komen om president te worden. Bovendien heeft El Baradei geen politiekprogramma, hij heeft helemaal geen programma,’ zei Nawal dinsdag in een interview.

    Onderwijs schuld van opkomst radicale moslims

    De 79-jarige doctor, feministe en schrijfster werd in de jaren zeventig in de gevangenis gezet vanwege haar uitgesproken mening tegen vrouwenbesnijdenis en voor scheiding van kerk en staat.

    De academica is van mening dat vooral het onderwijs de schuld is van de opkomst van radicale moslims. ‘Als het onderwijs zelfstandig denken, lezen en onderzoeken blijft ontmoedigen en in sommige gevallen zelfs verbiedt is dit een voedingsbodem voor extreem radicale religiositeit. De staat heeft de Egyptenaren opgesloten in een gevangenis van onwetendheid en creëert slaafse werknemers. Educatie is hier gebaseerd op uit het hoofd geleerde feiten en het herhalen van wat al voorgekauwd is.’

    Al Saadawi die zichzelf sociaal feministe noemt, gelooft dat democratische veranderingen voornamelijk uit de middenklasse zal komen. ‘Jongeren die met hun netwerken campagne gaan voeren.’

    Als Moebarak zich niet verkiesbaar stelt, zal hij waarschijnlijk de macht overdragen aan zijn zoon Gamal die nu al een vooraanstaande positie heeft in de huidige regeringspartij. Tegengeluiden worden door de Egyptische regering nauwelijks geduld. En hard optreden van de politie tijdens demonstraties op straat, heeft er nu al voor gezorgd dat veel jongeren hun toevlucht tot het internet hebben genomen. ‘Als al die mensen zich zouden organiseren, dan kunnen zij het land veranderen,’ aldus Nawal Al Saadawi

    Door  / 19 augustus 2010 / (0)

    C L O S E R


    Verantwoordelijkheid en Schuldgevoel – Volksprotesten in het Midden-OostenPosted: 14 Feb 2011 06:21 AM PST

    Guest Author: Evert van der Zweerde

    Volksprotest in Tunis, Egypte, Amman en Jemen. Hoe lang hebben zij gewacht totdat ze in opstand kwamen tegen de gehate regimes die er enkel zitten omdat “het Westen” denkt dat dat het eigen belang dient? Wiens belang? Niet het mijne.

    Twee jaar geleden was ik in Caïro. Ik at kip nuggets in de Kentucky Fried Chicken aan midan tahrir en keek mijn ogen uit naar de prachtige jonge Egyptische meiden, met kleurige hoofddoeken als ze moslima waren, zonder als ze kopt waren, in niqab als ze streng-gelovig waren. Arm-in-arm ondanks die verschillen, zoals ze nu zij-aan-zij staan. Zoals kopten nu tijdens het middaggebed een cordon vormen rond de moslims op het plein om te voorkomen dat het gespuis van Mubarak dat moment van kwetsbaarheid uitbuit.

    Twee jaar geleden sprak ik met de hoofdredacteur van al-misri al-yawm, toen een in de marge getolereerd dagblad, nu de spreekbuis van het nieuwe Egypte. Ik sprak met de voorzitter van de oppositiepartij al-wasat, “het midden”, wiens grote voorbeelden de Duitse CDU en de Turkse AKP waren. Ik sprak met de hoogstbejaarde Gamal al-banna, wiens broer Hassan de Moslim-Broederschap oprichtte. Hij droomde van een liberale socialistische islamitische democratische republiek. Van zo’n soort republiek droom ik ook weleens. Hopelijk leeft hij nog en droomt hij verder. De gebeurtenissen hebben hem ingehaald.

    De Egyptenaren die nu vrijheid en democratie willen zijn mensen zoals u en ik die afwillen van dictator en geheime politie, die corruptie en nepotisme beu zijn, die werk, betaalbare gezondheidszorg en goed onderwijs willen. Ja, de Moslim Broederschap levert dat al en ontleent daaraan haar populariteit. Ja, veel Egyptenaren vinden politieke inspiratie in islamitische idealen van rechtvaardigheid en gelijkheid. Ja, velen in het Midden Oosten zijn boos op de Westerse regeringen die, geplaagd door post-Holocaust schuldgevoel, al decennia lang met twee maten meten wanneer het om Israël en Palestina gaat. Ze zijn niet tegen Joden, ze zijn tegen zionisme en tegen de wijze waarop “wij” de compensatie van ons schuldgevoel op hen afwentelen. Dat schuldgevoel moeten wij, Hannah Arendt indachtig, omzetten in het nemen van verantwoordelijkheid voor een andere loop van de geschiedenis, voor zover dat in onze macht ligt.

    Om te begrijpen wat de mensen in Caïro willen, en vooral: niet willen, hoef ik niet te weten of ze moslim zijn of iets anders en het maakt mij niet uit of een deel van hen gelooft in het ideaal van een hersteld kalifaat. De helft van de Franse résistance tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog geloofde in een door de Sovjet-Unie geleide wereldrevolutie en de komst van een communistische samenleving. Wat ze deden was het bestrijden van de Nazi’s en van het gehate Vichy-regime van maarschalk Pétain. Mij hoeft het niet uit te maken of een demonstrant een T-shirt met Che Guevara draagt of “Allahu akbar” roept. Wat zij of hij wil snap ik ook zonder die heilige grootheden.

    De eerste versie van deze column schreef ik op een schrijfblok van een demokratski seminar dat ik 10 jaar geleden met mijn collega Machiel Karskens in Belgrado bezocht. Daar gingen toen, zoals ook nu, mensen de straat op om een einde te maken aan corruptie en nepotisme -daar heet dat “mafia”-, om werk en om een fatsoenlijk bestaan. Sommigen riepen en roepen daarbij dat het Orthodox-christelijke Servische volk al eeuwenlang slachtoffer is en dat dat afgelopen moet zijn. Dat klinkt eng, maar om te begrijpen wat de mensen in Belgrado willen, en vooral: niet willen, hoef ik niet te weten of ze Servisch-orthodox zijn of iets anders en het maakt mij niet uit of een deel van hen gelooft in een rechtvaardige theocratische heilsstaat. Wat ik wèl moet weten is dat “het Westen” mede schuld is aan de ontstane situatie door tijdens de burgeroorlog in voormalig Joegoslavië met twee maten te meten, het rooms-katholieke Kroatië klakkeloos te erkennen, Belgrado te bombarderen en de Bosnische moslims op een verschrikkelijke manier in de steek te laten.

    Historische schuld leidt tot schuldgevoel, maar schuldgevoel is nooit een constructieve politieke passie. Waar het om gaat is verantwoordelijkheid nemen en versnelde opname van Servië en van Bosnië-Herzegovina in de EU na te streven. Waar het om gaat is de neerbuigende postkoloniale houding ten opzichte van regeringen en bevolkingen in Tunis, Caïro en elders te vervangen door principiële gelijkwaardigheid. Het gaat niet aan om te roepen dat democratie een recht van ieder volk is en vervolgens op de rem te gaan staan wanneer een groepering de verkiezingen dreigt te gaan winnen die “ons” om welke reden dan ook niet bevalt. Waar het ook om gaat, ten slotte, hier en daar en overal, is op te houden religie te misbruiken om af te leiden van werkelijke problemen.

    Prof. dr. Evert van der Zweerde is hoogleraar Politieke filosofie aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. Deze tekst sprak hij afgelopen donderdag uit als column tijdens het actualiteitencollege over de crisis in het Midden-Oosten. Afgelopen vrijdag hieldt Evert van der Zweerde zijn oratie, getiteld “Het is ook nooit goed…” Democratie vanuit politiek-filosofisch perspectief




    The toxic residue of colonialism


    The overt age of grand empires gave way to the age of covert imperial hegemony, but now the edifice is crumbling.

    Richard Falk Last Modified: 14 Feb 2011 15:44 GMT
    As traffic returns to Tahrir Square, Egyptians are left to wonder if they’ve been sold out – like so many revolutionaries before them – and if the demands of the revolution will survive the perils of governance [GALLO/GETTY]  

    At least, overtly, there has been no talk from either Washington or Tel Aviv – the governments with most to lose as the Egyptian revolution unfolds – of military intervention. Such restraint is more expressive of geopolitical sanity than postcolonial morality, but still it enables some measure of change to take place that unsettles, temporarily at least, the established political order.

    And yet, by means seen and unseen, external actors, especially the United States, with a distinct American blend of presumed imperial and paternal prerogatives are seeking to shape and limit the outcome of this extraordinary uprising of the Egyptian people, long held in subsidised bondage by the cruel and corrupt Mubarak dictatorship. What is the most defining feature of this American-led diplomacy-from-without is the seeming propriety of managing the turmoil, so that the regime survives and the demonstrators return to what is perversely being called “normalcy”.

    I find most astonishing that President Obama so openly claimed the authority to instruct the Mubarak regime about how it was supposed to respond to the revolutionary uprising. I am not surprised at the effort, and would be surprised by its absence – but merely by the lack of any sign of imperial shyness in a world order that is supposedly built around the legitimacy of self-determination, national sovereignty, and democracy.

    And almost as surprising, is the failure of Mubarak to pretend in public that such interference in the guise of guidance is unacceptable – even if, behind closed doors, he listens submissively and acts accordingly. This geopolitical theatre performance of master and servant suggests the persistence of the colonial mentality on the part of both coloniser – and their national collaborators.

    The only genuine post-colonial message would be one of deference: “Stand aside, and applaud.” The great transformative struggles of the past century involved a series of challenges throughout the global south to get rid of the European colonial empires. But political independence did not bring an end to the more indirect, but still insidious, methods of control designed to protect economic and strategic interests. Such a dynamic meant reliance on political leaders that would sacrifice the wellbeing of their own people to serve the wishes of their unacknowledged former colonial masters, or their Western successors – the United States largely displacing France and the United Kingdom in the Middle East after the Suez crisis of 1956.

    And these post-colonial servants of the West would be well-paid autocrats vested with virtual ownership rights in relation to the indigenous wealth of their country, provided they remained receptive to foreign capital. In this regard, the Mubarak regime was a poster child of post-colonial success.

    Western liberal eyes were long accustomed not to notice the internal patterns of abuse that were integral to this foreign policy success – and if occasionally noticed by some intrepid journalist, who would then be ignored, or if necessary discredited as some sort of “leftist”. And if this failed to deflect criticism, they would point out, usually with an accompanying condescending smile, that torture and the like came with Arab cultural territory – a reality that savvy outsiders adapted to without any discomfort.

    Actually, in this instance, such practices were quite convenient, Egypt serving as one of the interrogation sites for the insidious practice of “extreme rendition”, by which the CIA transports “terrorist suspects” to accommodating foreign countries that willingly provide torture tools and facilities. Is this what is meant by “a human rights presidency”? The irony should not be overlooked that President Obama’s special envoy to the Mubarak government in the crisis was none other than Frank Wisner, an American with a most notable CIA lineage.

    There should be clarity about the relationship between this kind of post-colonial state, serving US regional interests – oil, Israel, containment of Islam, avoidance of unwanted proliferation of nuclear weapons – in exchange for power, privilege, and wealth vested in a tiny corrupt national elite that sacrifices the wellbeing and dignity of the national populace in the process.

    Such a structure in the post-colonial era, where national sovereignty and human rights infuse popular consciousness can only be maintained by erecting high barriers of fear, reinforced by state terror, designed to intimidate the populace from pursuing their goals and values. When these barriers are breached, as recently in Tunisia and Egypt, then the fragility of the oppressive regime glows in the dark.

    The dictator either runs for the nearest exit, as did Tunisia’s Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, or is dumped by his entourage and foreign friends so that the revolutionary challenge can be tricked into a premature accommodation. This latter process seemed to represent the one of latest maneuverings of the palace elite in Cairo and their backers in the White House. Only time will tell whether the furies of counterrevolution will win the day, possibly by gunfire and whip – and possibly through mollifying gestures of reform that become unfulfillable promises in due course if the old regime is not totally reconstructed.

    Unfulfillable – because corruption and gross disparities of wealth amid mass impoverishment can only be sustained, post-Tahrir Square, through the reimposition of oppressive rule. And if it is not oppressive, then it will not be able for very long to withstand demands for rights, for social and economic justice, and due cause for solidarity with the Palestinian struggle.

    Here is the crux of the ethical irony. Washington is respectful of the logic of self-determination, so long as it converges with the US grand strategy, and is oblivious to the will of the people whenever its expression is seen as posing a threat to the neoliberal overlords of the globalised world economy, or to strategic alignments that seem so dear to State Department or Pentagon planners.

    As a result there is an inevitable to-ing and fro-ing as the United States tries to bob and weave, celebrating the advent of democracy in Egypt,complaining about the violence and torture of the tottering regime – while doing what it can to manage the process from outside, which means preventing genuine change, much less a democratic transformation of the Egyptian state. Anointing the main CIA contact and Mubarak loyalist, Omar Suleiman, to preside over the transition process on behalf of Egypt seems a thinly disguised plan to throw Mubarak to the crowd, while stabilising the regime he presided over for more than 30 years.  

    I would have expected more subtlety on the part of the geopolitical managers, but perhaps its absence is one more sign of imperial myopia that so often accompanies the decline of great empires.

    It is notable that most protesters, when asked by the media about their reasons for risking death and violence by being in the Egyptian streets, responded with variations on the phrases: “We want our rights” or: “We want freedom and dignity”. Of course, joblessness, poverty, food security – and anger at the corruption, abuses, and dynastic pretensions of the Mubarak regime offer an understandable infrastructure of rage that undoubtedly fuels the revolutionary fires. But it is “rights” and “dignity” that seem to float on the surface of this awakened political consciousness.

    These ideas, to a large extent nurtured in the hothouse of Western consciousness and then innocently exported as a sign of good will, like “nationalism” a century earlier, might originally be intended only as public relations move, but over time, such ideas gave rise to the dreams of the oppressed and victimised – and when the unexpected historical moment finally arrived, burst into flame. I remember talking a decade or so ago to Indonesian radicals in Jakarta who talked of the extent to which their initial involvement in anti-colonial struggle was stimulated by what they had learned from their Dutch colonial teachers about the rise of nationalism as a political ideology in the West.

    Ideas may be disseminated with conservative intent, but if they later become appropriated on behalf of the struggles of oppressed peoples, such ideas are reborn – and serve as the underpinnings of a new emancipatory politics. Nothing better illustrates this Hegelian journey than the idea of “self-determination”, initially proclaimed by Woodrow Wilson after World War I. Wilson was a leader who sought above all to maintain order, believed in satisfying the aims of foreign investors and corporations, and had no complaints about the European colonial empires. For him, self-determination was merely a convenient means to arrange the permanent breakup of the Ottoman Empire through the formation of a series of ethnic states.

    Little did Wilson imagine, despite warnings from his secretary of state, that self-determination could serve other gods – and become a powerful mobilising tool to overthrow colonial rule. In our time, human rights has followed a similarly winding path, sometimes being no more than a propaganda banner used to taunt enemies during the Cold War, sometimes as a convenient hedge against imperial identity – and sometimes as the foundation of revolutionary zeal, as seems to be the case in the unfinished and ongoing struggles for rights and dignity taking place throughout the Arab world in a variety of forms.

    It is impossible to predict how this future will play out. There are too many forces at play in circumstances of radical uncertainty. In Egypt, for instance, it is widely believed that the army holds most of the cards, and that where it finally decides to put its weight will determine the outcome. But is such conventional wisdom not just one more sign that hard power realism dominates our imagination, and that historical agency belongs in the end to the generals and their weapons, and not to the people in the streets?

    Of course, there is a blurring of pressures as the army could have been merely trying to go with the flow, siding with the winner once the outcome was clear. Is there any reason to rely on the wisdom, judgment, and good will of armies – not just in Egypt whose commanders owe their positions to Mubarak – but throughout the world?

    In Iran the army did stand aside, and a revolutionary process transformed the Shah’s edifice of corrupt and brutal governance. The people momentarily prevailed, only to have their extraordinary nonviolent victory snatched away in a subsequent counter-revolutionary move that substituted theocracy for democracy.

    There are few instances of revolutionary victory, and in those few instances, it is rarer still to carry forward the revolutionary mission without disruption. The challenge is to sustain the revolution in the face of almost inevitable counter-revolutionary projects, some launched by those who were part of the earlier movement unified against the old order, but now determined to hijack the victory for its own ends. The complexities of the revolutionary moment require utmost vigilance on the part of those who view emancipation, justice, and democracy as their animating ideals, because there will be enemies who seek to seize power at the expense of humane politics.

    One of the most impressive features of the Egyptian revolution up to this point has been the extraordinary ethos of nonviolence and solidarity exhibited by the massed demonstrators, even in the face of repeated bloody provocations of the baltagiyya dispatched by the regime. This ethos refused to be diverted by these provocations, and we can only hope against hope that the provocations will cease, and that counter-revolutionary tides will subside, sensing either the futility of assaulting history or imploding at long last from the build up of corrosive effects from a long embrace of an encompassing illegitimacy.

    Richard Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He has authored and edited numerous publications spanning a period of five decades, most recently editing the volume International Law and the Third World: Reshaping Justice (Routledge, 2008).

    He is currently serving his third year of a six year term as a United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights. 

    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

    Al Jazeera


    Bloggers in the Arab World

    Playing with Fire

    Redactie | Monday 22 November 2010

    Bookmark and Share


    By: Amira al-Ahl

    In the Arab world, as elsewhere, the Internet opens up new freedoms and opportunities for democracy. However, as in China and Iran, it also gives rise to opposition from the authorities. Anyone active on the Internet lives dangerously; blogging involves playing with fire.

    “Power is founded on Justice” proclaim large golden letters in the foyer of the court building at Hadayeq al-Qobba in the north of Cairo. For the group of young people assembled here this morning, this sounds like pure mockery. Some laugh bitterly when they catch sight of the inscription.

    However, on this early Thursday morning, they still hope that perhaps this promise might be fulfilled – that justice, rather than arbitrariness and tyranny, is the foundation of power.

    Police harassment

    One member of the group in particular is hoping for justice: Wael Abbas. The 35-year-old is charged with having cut off his neighbour’s Internet connection, which would entail six months in prison.

    In November, a twenty-man squad of security police in six vehicles turned up in front of Abbas’ house to arrest him. They threatened his mother and forced their way into the flat without a warrant for his arrest or authorisation to search the place. “This was extremely tough action,” says attorney Gamal Eid of the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI).

    The only reason Abbas wasn’t arrested was because he was sitting in Beirut Airport at the time. “I still don’t know whether the charge was an act of personal revenge or whether it has a political dimension,” he says. Gamal Eid, however, is sure that the government is behind it. “They want to arrest him, but they’re waiting for the right moment.”

    Since 2005, Wael Abbas has been one of Egypt’s most active bloggers. His name and his blog are known throughout the Arab world. It was he who published on his website photos of sexual assaults on women in Cairo and videos showing torture in Egyptian police stations, which led to a scandal and made him famous.

    Abbas reports regularly on abuses in his country. He is one of the most vocal activists in Egypt, denouncing, accusing and demanding change, and in doing so he has made himself a thorn in the side of the government.

    Democratic development


    Over the past ten years, the Egyptian government and Arab states in general have invested a great deal in Internet infrastructure. However, it was probably not clear to most regimes that this would open a door to democratic development.

    “One Social Network – With a Rebellious Message”, the most recent publication by the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, quotes from a study by the American RAND Institute: “The basis for an information revolution is free expression of opinion with exchange of and general access to information.”

    ANHRI then writes: “Not even the greatest hypocrite would maintain that Arab governments respect, let alone support, free expression of opinion, or that they uphold the right to access to and circulation of information.” It is thus self-evident that the rift between governments and Internet activists grows daily with the latter struggling for democracy by way of the Internet.

    According to ANHRI, there are around 58 million Internet users in the Arab world, 15 million of them in Egypt alone. The total number of blogs is estimated at 600,000, but only around 150,000 are actively used.

    Most Arab blogs (around one-third) come from Egypt, followed by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Morocco. The bloggers are usually aged between 25 and 35 and write about political and religious topics as well as personal matters.

    “Egyptian bloggers try to use their blogs to break through political constraints and are known for their bitter criticism of the government despite its attempts to suppress them.” (ANHRI)

    Enemies of the Internet

    Internet activists in all Arab countries must expect repression. There is scarcely any other part of the world where the Internet is subject to such tight surveillance as here, where bloggers are so intimidated and persecuted, or anywhere where they are so frequently arrested and even tortured. Every year, Reporters without Frontiers publishes a list of “Enemies of the Internet”; in 2009, there were four Arab countries on the list of twelve: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and Syria.

    ANHRI lawyers also represent, among others, Kareem Amer, probably the best-known imprisoned blogger in the Arab world. Amer was arrested in November 2006 and condemned the following February to four years in prison: three years because he supposedly defamed Islam in his online articles and one year for allegedly insulting President Mubarak in what he wrote.

    His lawyers have not managed to get his sentence reduced and now they are not even allowed to visit him any more. “The authorities have been refusing us access to him,” says Gamad Eid.

    Nevertheless, constant government threats, controls and intimidation have not stopped most bloggers from continuing to struggle against corruption, tyranny and autocracy and for free expression of opinion. “I have a voice and I want this voice to be heard,” is how Wael Abbas explains his commitment.

    Autocratic regimes can only win their battle against people like Abbas if they ban the Internet completely, but that has become virtually impossible.

    Ethan Zuckermann, a leading online activist, promotes a “Cute Cats Theory”. In a Princeton lecture entitled “Internet Censorship: How Cute Cats Can Help”, he explains how Web 2.0, which allows everyone to publish on the net and to communicate with others, helps political activism.

    To simplify somewhat, the millions of “naïve” Internet users who publish photos of their cats and babies on Facebook, YouTube and Flickr constitute a virtual protective shield for politically-active users. Zuckermann argues that very few governments can afford to block Facebook or YouTube just because they want to prevent political activism, as they would then arouse the hostility of millions of citizens who utilise these social networks for personal activities.

    Social networks

    In the Arab world, Facebook is used by at least twelve million people, with more joining every day. The Web 2.0 social networks have become among the most important means of communication for young Arabs – and not just the politically active. However, they also, of course, serve as a significant means of mobilisation for activists.

    Many bloggers, particularly the pioneers, increasingly employ micro-blogging for communication. Instead of spending a great deal of time in front of their computer writing blog entries, they now send Twitter news from mobile phones, reaching their entire network within seconds as a text message or on their computers.

    The best example of the utilisation of social networks for political activism is the “6 April” Facebook group. The movement originally came into existence when a young Egyptian woman, Israa Abdel-Fattah, expressed solidarity with the workers’ strike on 6 April 2008 by calling for others to take similar strike action on that day. Within a very short time the group had over 70,000 members.

    Through Facebook and Twitter, the call for a general strike, which adopted the slogan “Stay at Home”, spread like wildfire and was a huge success in the eyes of many observers. On 6 April 2008, Cairo’s streets were absolutely empty, and the initiator of the campaign was arrested for a while – a sure sign that the Egyptian government would prefer to put a stop to such actions in the future.

    The Internet and Web 2.0′s social networks have irreversibly broken open the old structures of Arab society. The Internet is an open space, giving a voice to people who previously had none, a place for communication and the exchange of knowledge that empowers all its users: the power to know, to find out and to change. The Internet does away with hierarchies and breaches taboos, particularly in autocratic societal structures.

    Opportunity for women

    It is primarily women who benefit from the Internet, having opened a hitherto closed door in Saudi Arabia, one of the world’s most autocratic regimes. Excluded from all political life, women have conquered a place on the Internet that allows them the possibility to express freely their views on all topics.

    It is therefore scarcely surprising that almost 50% of Saudi bloggers are female. Very few use their real name. Najla Barasain is a great exception. This 24-year-old mostly writes about women’s themes and is one of the most prominent female bloggers in the country. Her family supports her in this hobby, which is rare in the conservative kingdom.

    “To begin with, I had problems with a male cousin because I use my real name, but now they’ve all got used to it,” says Najla Barasain, grinning. “I’m simply the intellectual in the family and a bit controversial.”

    Up to now, online activism in Saudi Arabia has mainly limited itself to Internet campaigns intended to draw attention to existing abuses. In Egypt, however, activists have already taken campaigns out of the virtual world onto the streets.

    That is the real challenge for online activists. Their striving for more democracy and a pluralistic society will only have a chance if they succeed in turning a digital democratic campaign, initiated by just a few people, into a broad-based democratic movement that also takes in the many millions without Internet access.

    But that is the greatest of all dangers for the existing regimes in the Arab world, which will obviously do everything possible to block such a development. Particularly in Egypt, where presidential elections are scheduled for 2011, advocates of human rights anticipate that the Mubarak regime will take even tougher action against activists than they have to date.

    “The months ahead will be hard,” fears Gamal Eid. In the republic of the Nile, which has been governed under a state of emergency for almost thirty years now, it is very easy to resort to arbitrary means to get rid of unwelcome opponents.

    That is why the young lawyers, journalists and activists who have gathered in the Abbaseyya court building this hot February morning in support of their friend and colleague Wael Abbas, do not believe that justice is the foundation of all action in Egypt.

    When Wael Abbas appears before the judge with his three lawyers just before midday, the possibility of six months in prison floats over him like the sword of Damocles. However, the exonerating evidence his lawyer presents to the judge is absolutely irrefutable. After a short time the judge waves away the defence team and writes a single word on the file: “Innocent”.

    “The charge was fabricated in order to intimidate me and get me out of the way,” says Wael Abbas. Nonetheless, his experience did have one positive note: “The judgement has restored my faith in the Egyptian legal system.”

    Amira al-Ahl


    Amira al-Ahl is a German journalist in Cairo.

    This entry was posted in Islam, Midden-Oosten and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

    Redactie | Monday 22 November 2010

    (via facebook 🙂 )


    Deaths stoke Bahrain tension


    Offering apology, king says incidents will be investigated, but opposition group suspends parliamentary participation

    Last Modified: 15 Feb 2011 21:59 GMT
    Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Manama reports on the ongoing unrest in the Bahraini capital

            At least one person has been killed and several others injured after riot police in Bahrain opened fire at protesters holding a funeral service for a man killed during protests in the kingdom a day earlier.


    The victim, Fadhel Ali Almatrook, was hit with bird-shotgun in the Gulf state’s capital, Manama, on Tuesday morning, Maryam Alkhawaja, head of foreign relations at the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights, told Al Jazeera.

    “This morning the protesters were walking from the hospital to the cemetery and they got attacked by the riot police,” Alkhawaja said.

    “Thousands of people are marching in the streets, demanding the removal of the regime – police fired tear gas and bird shot, using excessive force – that is why people got hurt.”

    Meanwhile on Tuesday, the US said it was “very concerned” by recent violence in protests in Bahrain and urged all sides to exercise restraint.

    “The United States is very concerned by recent violence surrounding protests in Bahrain,” state department spokesman PJ Crowley said in a statement. “We also call on all parties to exercise restraint and refrain from violence.”

    At least 25 people were reported to have been treated for injuries in hospital.

    The crowds chanted “The people demand the fall of the regime!” as they poured into Manama’s Pearl Roundabout after marching from the funeral on the city’s outskirts.

    An Al Jazeera correspondent in Bahrain, who cannot be named for his own safety, said that police took a very heavy-handed approach towards the protesters.

    “Police fired on the protesters this morning, but they showed very strong resistance,” our correspondent said.

    “It seems like the funeral procession was allowed to continue, but police were playing a cat-and-mouse game with the protesters.”

    Royal apology
    Later in on Tuesday, the king of Bahrain, Sheikh Hamad bin Isa Al-Khalifa, made a rare television appearance in which he offered condolences on the protesters’ deaths.
    He expressed his condolences for “the deaths of two of our dear sons” in a televised speech and said a committee would investigate the killings.
    “We will ask legislators to look into this issue and suggest needed laws to resolve it,” he said, adding that peaceful protests were legal.
    US spokesman Crowley said the country welcomed Bahrain’s promise to investigate, and urged the government to quickly follow up on its pledge.


    Police reportedly fired tear gas and rubber bullets at the funeral procession [Mahmood Nasser Al-Yousif] 

    Angered by the two deaths, al-Wefaq, Bahrain’s main Shia Muslim opposition group, announced it was suspending its participation in the parliament.

    “This is the first step. We want to see dialogue,” Ibrahim Mattar, an al-Wefaq parliamentarian, said. “In the coming days, we are either going to resign from the council or continue.”

    Al-Wefaq has a strong presence inside the parliament and within the Shia community.

    The protesters say their main demand is the resignation of Sheikh Khalifa bin Salman al-Khalifa, the prime minister, who has governed Bahrain since its independence in 1971.

    An uncle of the king, he is seen as a symbol of the wealth of the ruling family.

    The protesters say they are also demanding the release of political prisoners, which the government has promised, and the creation of a new constitution.

    Tuesday’s violence came a day after demonstrators observed a Day of Rage, apparently inspired by the recent uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia.

    Thousands came out on the streets on Monday to protest, sparking clashes with riot police.

    Video from YouTube showing riot police firing on largely peaceful protesters during that demonstration.

    Poverty, high unemployment and alleged attempts by the state to grant citizenship to Sunni foreigners to change the demographic balance have intensified discontent among Bahrain’s Shias.

    Around half of the tiny island kingdom’s 1.3 million people are Bahraini, with the rest being foreign workers. The majority of citizens are Shia.

    Online reaction
    Amira Al Hussaini, a Bahraini blogger who monitors citizen media for Global Voices Online, told Al Jazeera that there has been a huge outpouring of anger online in Bahrain.
    “What we’ve seen yesterday and today, is a break from the normal routine – people like me, that are not necessarily in favour of the protests that are happening in Bahrain at this time, are now speaking out,” she said.
    “I am trying to remain objective but I can’t – people are being shot at close range.”
    Hussaini said that people in Bahrain were very afraid.
    “We are afraid of going out in the streets and demanding our rights. Tunisia and Egypt have given people in Arab countries hope – even if you believe that something is impossible.
    “I personally have no respect for the police – they lie, they manipulate the story,” she said.
    “This is being pitted as a sectarian issue – the Shia wanting to overthrow the regime. But it is not a Shia uprising.”

    She said that people from all backgrounds and religions were behind the ongoing protests.


    Al Jazeera and agencies



    US vs UN on Israeli settlements


    Vetoing UN resolutions condemning Israeli settlements violates broader US interests.

    MJ Rosenberg Last Modified: 15 Feb 2011 16:54 GMT
    Israel has been evicting Palestinians from their East Jerusalem homes to make way for settlers [AFP]

    Anyone who thought that the United States has learned anything from the various revolutions upturning the Arab world has another think coming. We didn’t.

    On Thursday, as the Egyptian revolution was culminating with the collapse of the Mubarak regime, the Obama administration announced that it intends to veto a United Nations Security Council resolution, sponsored by 122 nations, condemning Israeli settlement expansion.

    This is from AFP’s report on what Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg told the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

    “We have made very clear that we do not think the Security Council is the right place to engage on these issues,” Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg told the House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Committee.

    “We have had some success, at least for the moment, in not having that arise there. And we will continue to employ the tools that we have to make sure that continues to not happen,” said Steinberg.

    There is so much wrong with Steinberg’s statement that it is hard to know where to start.

    First is the obvious. Opposition to Israeli settlements is perhaps the only issue on which the entire Arab and Muslim world is united. Iraqis and Afghanis, Syrians and Egyptians, Indonesians and Pakistanis don’t agree on much, but they do agree on that. They also agree that the US policy on settlements demonstrates flagrant disregard for human rights in the Muslim world (at least when Israel is the human rights violator).

    Accordingly, a US decision to support the condemnation of settlements would send a clear message to the Arab and Muslim world that we understand what is happening in the Middle East and that we share at least some of its peoples’ concerns.

    The settlement issue should be an easy one for the United States. Our official policy is the same as that of the Arab world. We oppose settlements. We consider them illegal.  We have repeatedly demanded that the Israelis stop expanding them (although the Israeli government repeatedly ignores us). The administration feels so strongly about settlements that it recently offered Israel an extra $3.5bn in US aid to freeze settlements for 90 days.

    It is impossible, then, for the United States to pretend that we do not agree with the resolution (especially when its language was carefully drafted to comport with the administration’s official position). So why will we veto a resolution that expresses our own views?

    Steinberg says that “We do not think the Security Council is the right place to engage on these issues.”

    Why not? It is the Security Council that passed all the major international resolutions (with US support) governing Israel’s role in the occupied territories since the first one, UN Resolution 242 in 1967.

    He then adds, with clear pride that:

    “We have had some success, at least for the moment, in not having that [the settlements issue] arise there.”

    Very impressive. The United States has had no success whatsoever in getting the Netanyahu government to stop expanding settlements — to stop evicting Palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem to make way for ultra-Orthodox settlers — and no success in getting Israel to crack down on settler violence, but we have had “some success” in keeping the issue out of the United Nations.

    The only way to resolve the settlements issue, according to Steinberg, “is through engagement through the parties, and that is our clear and consistent position”. Clear and consistent it may be. But it hasn’t worked. The bulldozers never stop.

    Of course, it is not hard to explain the Obama administration’s decision to veto a resolution embodying positions that we support. It is the power of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which is lobbying furiously for a US veto (actually not so furiously; AIPAC doesn’t waste energy when it knows that its congressional acolytes — and Dennis Ross in the White House itself — will do its work for them).

    The power of the lobby is the only reason we will veto the resolution. Try to come up with another one. After all, voting for the resolution (or, at least, abstaining on it) serves US interests in the Middle East at a critical moment and is consistent with US policy.

    But it would enrage the lobby and its friends who will threaten retribution in the 2012 election.

    Simply put, our Middle East policy is all about domestic politics. And not even the incredible events of the past month will change that.

    That is why US standing in the Middle East will continue to deteriorate. We simply cannot deliver. After all, there is always another election on the horizon and that means that it is donors, not diplomats, who determine US policy.

    MJ Rosenberg is a Senior Foreign Policy Fellow at Media Matters Action Network. The above article first appeared in Foreign Policy Matters, a part of the Media Matters Action Network.
    Follow MJ’s work on Facebook or on Twitter.
    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.





    Violent protests break out in Libya


    Clashes reported in eastern city of Benghazi as security forces and government supporters confront demonstrators.

    Last Modified: 16 Feb 2011 09:06 GMT
    Activists demanded an end to Gaddafi’s 41-year rule [Outside photo: Quryna newspaper]

    Protesters have clashed with police and government supporters in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi, reports say.

    Demonstrators gathered in the early hours of Wednesday morning in front of police headquarters and chanted slogans against the “corrupt rulers of the country”, Al Jazeera’s sources said.

    Police fired tear gas and violently dispersed protesters, the sources said without providing further details.

    The online edition of Libya’s privately-owned Quryna newspaper, which is based in Benghazi, said the protesters were armed with petrol bombs and threw stones.

    According to the newspaper, 14 people were injured in the clashes, including three demonstrators and 10 security officials.

    In a telephone interview with Al Jazeera, Idris Al-Mesmari, a Libyan novelist and writer, said that security officials in civilian clothes came and dispersed protesters by using tear gas, batons and hot water.

    Al-Mesmari was arrested hours after the interview, unconfirmed reports say.

    ‘Day of rage’ called

    Anti-government protesters have also called on citizens to observe Thursday as a “Day of Rage”. They are hoping to emulate recent popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia to end Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s 41-year-old rule.

    The rare protests reportedly began after relatives of those killed in a prison massacre about 15 years ago took to streets. They were joined by scores of other supporters.

    Benghazi residents have a history of distrust of Gaddafi 

    The relatives were said to have been angered by the detention of Fathi Terbil, human rights lawyer and official spokesman of the victims’ families, who was arrested by the Libyan security forces, for no apparent reason.

    However, Terbil was later released, according to reports.

    Twelve-hundred prisoners were killed in the Abu Slim prison massacre on June 29, 1996, after they had objected to their inhumane conditions inside the prison.

    Those killed were buried in the prison’s courtyard and in mass graves in Tripoli. The families of the victims have been demanding that the culprits be punished.

    Mohammed Maree, an Egyptian blogger, said “Gaddafi’s regime has not listened to such pleas and continues to treat the Libyan people with lead and fire.”

    “This is why we announce our solidarity with the Libyan people and the families of the martyrs until the criminals are punished, starting with Muammer and his family.”

    Libyan state television reported that rallies were taking place all over the country early this morning “in support of the rule of the people by the people”.

    Signed statement

    A group of prominent Libyans and members of human rights organisations have also demanded the resignation of Gaddafi.

    They said that the Libyans have the right to express themselves through peaceful demonstrations without any threat of harassment from the regime.

    The demands came in a statement signed by 213 personalities from different segments of the Libyan society, including  political activists, lawyers, students, and government officials. 

    Meanwhile, a local human rights activist told Reuters news agency that the authorities have decided to release 110 prisoners jailed for membership of banned organisation, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.

    The prisoners to be freed on Wednesday, are the last members of the group still being held and will be set free from Tripoli’s Abu Salim jail, Mohamed Ternish, chairman of the Libya Human Rights Association said.

    Hundreds of alleged members of the group have been freed from jail after it renounced violence last year.

    Al Jazeera and agencies



    Unblocking Syria’s social media


    Some wonder if Syria’s decision to allow access to facebook and blog sites is just a new way to track activists.

    Jillian York Last Modified: 12 Feb 2011 13:09 GMT

    Free access to social networking sites is different from free expression, says Jillian York [Reuters] 

    Until recently, Tunisia held the worst record for Internet filtering in the Arab world, blocking everything from political opposition to video-sharing sites. 

    But along with Tunisia’s revolt came increased Internet freedom: The interim government now blocks far fewer sites, mainly those considered “obscene”, and Internet users attempting to access such sites now encounter a block page rather than a blank one, demonstrating an increased degree of transparency.

    Syria, formerly the runner-up to Tunisia, appears to be taking a similar turn. On Wednesday, Syrian authorities granted access to Facebook, Blogspot, and YouTube, and for the first time since 2007, users of those sites could get to the social networking sites freely, without use of a proxy.

    The Internet in Syria has long been censored. Frequently named an “enemy of the Internet” by watchdog group Reporters Sans Frontières, the country blocks not only social media sites but political opposition, sites with human rights information, Kurdish sites, anonymisers, and the website of the banned Muslim Brotherhood.

    Tech-savvy Syrian Internet users utilize VPN services, web-based proxies and other tools to circumvent the blocks, though the export of those tools from the United States is also prohibited without a license from Treasury and Commerce departments, due to long-standing sanctions.

    Western sanctions

    The sanctions on the country also affect Syrian censorship, as US companies like Google are prohibited from marketing their products within the country. Syrians cannot download tools like Google Chrome and Google Earth, nor can they buy licensed versions of Microsoft and other software. 

    Though the unblocking is only a small step–Syrians have reported that the keywords “facebook” and “proxy” are still blocked on some Internet Service Providers (ISPs), as are Amazon.com and the Arabic version of Wikipedia–it may be a step in the right direction for a regime that is trying to garner further popular support in light of the recent events in the region.

    The move could also curry favor for Syria in Washington. In 2010, the State Department sent a delegation of executives from major US tech firms–most of which are constrained by US export control policy from doing business in Syria–to meet with the Syrian president and his cabinet.

    The meeting was focused on a number of issues, including intellectual property, but undoubtedly also involved talk of Internet freedom.

    Of course, free access to these networks is not without danger: Though the average Syrian user may have little cause for concern, the newfound freedom could pose risks to activists.

    Despite promised reforms from President Bashar al-Assad, Syria remains a repressive political climate.  Though the Syrian constitution guarantees freedom of expression, the country’s emergency law–in place since 1962–strips citizens of most constitutional protections.

    While the ban on Blogspot was still in place, no fewer than four bloggers using the service were arrested for content published on Blogspot blogs, including 19-year-old Tal al Mallouhi, charged with espionage in December 2010 for her writings on Palestine and local affairs. 

    Access versus expression

    Activists should remember that free access does not mean freedom of expression. Social media tools have been used for surveillance in a number of countries, and are easily exploited.

    In Tunisia, reports that the government had phished user passwords for Facebook and Gmail emerged in December, while in the United States, Facebook has been used by creditors to track down people with outstanding debt. 

    Though phishing may be uncommon, and can be prevented by using HTTPS to connect to Facebook (a feature just rolled out to all users), activists who accept friend requests from people they don’t know personally are taking a risk. Creating a profile is an easy process, and Facebook’s platform allows anyone to add any individual as a friend, unless they’ve adjusted their security settings to avoid it.

    Some Syrian Facebook users have speculated that the move could make it easier for the government to monitor their usage of the site.  For its part, the State Department has commented on the concern as well, with Secretary of State Clinton’s Senior Advisor for Innovation Alec Ross tweeting: “Welcome positive move on Facebook & YouTube in #Syria but concerned that freedom puts users at risk absent freedom of expression&association.”

    Others, such as Mazen Darwish, from the Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom of Expression, see the move as a positive step. Speaking to the Guardian, Darwish stated that: “After what happened on the 4th and the 5th, the authorities now know that the Syrian people are not the enemy.”

    Jillian York is a writer, blogger, and activist based in Boston. She works at Harvard Law School’s Berkman Centre for Internet & Society and is involved with Global Voices Online.

    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

    Al Jazeera

    What makes a revolution succeed?


    While the aspirations are different, Egyptians could take five lessons from Iran’s 1979 revolt.

    Roxane Farmanfarmaian Last Modified: 14 Feb 2011 13:14 GMT
    While Egypt’s army is popular, trusting military forces is not always the best plan for revolutionaries [GALLO/GETTY] 

    On February 12, 32 years this week, Iran proclaimed its revolution a success: the Shah was gone, the military had been decimated, and a new era could dawn.

    Although what followed turned out very differently than what the Egyptians are hoping for, Iran’s was one of the great revolutions of the 20th century, and Egyptians might well look to it for inspiration in their effort to oust an entrenched regime and gain new rights.

    Today, the Egyptian military has assumed command, with promises of free and fair elections. Does this mean the demonstrators can go home and trust their army? Egypt and Iran are very different, their aspirations and media eons apart, and, one hopes, the future the Egyptians construct will be more democratic and safe for those reaching for popular victory.

    Nonetheless, for those along the Nile facing quickly changing events, the Iranian revolution offers some useful lessons.

    Lesson one: Revolutions take time

    From the day when the Iranian revolution is generally thought to have begun, sparked by the death of 400 people in a theatre fire in Abadan, Iran’s main oil city, to the pronouncement of victory on February 12, 1979, a year and a month had elapsed.

    Demonstrations took place both in winter snow and searing summer heat, people were shot, the uprisings after their initial newsworthiness was no longer featured by the international media. But the rallies continued and grew, the people hung on, the sacrifices they had already made driving them to over-turning a military regime.

    In Egypt, we are seeing the demands shift as the true purpose of the uprising becomes clear – to remove the regime, not just its many Gorgan-like heads. Mubarak’s resignation, and the shift into military hands, may mean little. Changing a regime is a lengthy process, requiring vision and organisation, and, as the Iranian demonstrators discovered, tenacity.

    Lesson two: Entrenched regimes don’t leave quietly

    After three weeks of upheaval, Mubarak may, or may not, be truly gone. Significantly, he is still in Egypt; ousted presidents, such as Tunisia’s Ben Ali, are usually not really ‘gone’ until they are in exile. The Shah hung on for a year despite the continuous chants  of “Death to the Shah”. In his last days, like Mubarak, the Shah attempted to create a transitional government drawn from the existing regime,  replacing his prime minister with a new though trusted face. 

    The Shah, in fact, went through three prime ministers – first one with a democratic reputation, then a general, finally a member of one of Iran’s great tribes and leader of the main opposition party – the National Front (though by then, it was but a shell).

    The people in the streets accepted none of them. Like Egypt’s vice president Omar Suleiman, the Shah’s hand-picked leaders made small concessions accompanied by threats: the people had to go home, the military was in control and running out of patience, democracy Western-style was not appropriate for Middle Easterners.

    For Iranians, like Egyptians, the important point was to rid themselves of an elitist, corrupt regime, whoever was at its helm. And so the demonstrations continued even after the Shah fled, ensuring the  existing edifice in its entirety was at last swept away.

    Lesson three: The army is not reliable

    Unlike in Egypt so far, the Iranian military – at the time considered the fifth most powerful in the world – did not refrain from turning on its people. 

    The Friday Massacre in October 1978 was only one of many instances when the army shot live ammunition into the crowds. And, although to date, the Egyptian military has refrained from such outright attacks, the risk of it turning violent hangs perpetually over the people in the streets.

    The army, which now commands the government, has made strong calls for stability, indicating the risk is chaos if rallies continue. Yet, despite similar statements from the army in Iran, the demonstrators continued. Though there had been bloodshed, demonstrators there refused to turn their ire on the army, and eventually, they wore the soldiers down.

    Flowers were hung from the barrels of their guns. Families, friends and neighbours hugged and chatted with the soldiers as they marched by them in the streets, draping banners across the tanks parked on the sidewalks, spraying slogans on their metal sides, and festooning them with posters.  

    For Egyptians, this is an important lesson. The military retains significant fire-power, and today is giving mixed signals – a possibly dangerous moment. There are reports of  younger members of the corps joining the demonstrators, even as the old guard has dug in. Staying peaceful in the face of military power is perhaps one of the greatest tools in the hands of the demonstrators, and one not to be squandered.

    Lesson four: Strikes are key to success

    In Egypt, one of the game-changing developments over the past week has been the wave of strikes in provincial towns by factory workers demanding better pay and benefits.

    In Iran, the strikes, which began in the oil fields and spread across the country, were critical in bringing the regime to its knees. The shortages of gas and kerosene (which many Iranian households depended on for heating during a winter far more inclement than Egypt’s) led to lines that snaked for blocks from the gas stations, many of them with waits lasting 48 hours.

    Through the night, drivers sat patiently in their cars, and under their motorbikes and hand-carts, despite the government insisting that Iranians had no stomach for such deprivation. Only the elite and military obtained petrol, and drove almost proudly through the nearly empty streets, a move that strengthened popular resolve against them.

    Strikes, though not always continuous, spread to factories, industrial complexes, and critically, to electrical plants, which cut power for four hours everyday. This coincided with the state television-controlled evening news hour, a strategic move;  Iranians ate dinner to candlelight and got their news instead through the radio, mainly the BBC.  

    The strikes gave backbone to the movement – while enabling the strikers to join the demonstrations. They carried economic as well as psychological power, and the Iranians, like the Egyptians, showed a willingness to live with  hardship to obtain the departure of the regime.

    Lesson five: State-controlled media drift is an important accomplishment

    In Egypt, the upheaval has reflected the times: the demonstrations began with blogging and tweeting, and gained momentum through live webcasts, Facebook and mobile phone.

    Even when Mubarak shut down the internet and cellular networks, the high-tech communications continued.

    Naturally, Iran benefited from none of this. However, the drift of the state-run media is a bell-weather of how events are proceeding. Iran’s Kayhan and Etela’at newspapers, much like Egypt’s al-Ahram, were government mouthpieces. When Kayhan and Etela’at first showed people in the streets burning the ubiquitous pictures of the Shah, which until then had hung on every office wall and family hallway, the grip of the state was viscerally understood to be slipping.

    The same has happened with al-Ahram, which, this past week, reported the news more even-handedly. For Egyptians, this is a milestone, and the wedge toward true media freedom. Of the many freedoms being sought, free speech, and the right of free assembly, are the first marks of real success.

    The Nile Wave may appear victorious – but so far, there are few guaranteed changes coming to Egyptian lives.  Despite the jubilation, the same old military faces remain in place. If the movement is to gain its just reward, Iran’s past may help to bring a dose of reality to the present, and with luck, brighten Egypt’s future, even as its own remains en-shadowed.

    Dr Roxane Farmanfarmaian is an affiliated lecturer in the Department of Politics and International Studies at Cambridge University. She is also a Visiting Scholar at the Middle East Center of the University of Utah. She lived in Iran during the Revolution and Hostage Crisis.

    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

    Al Jazeera


    Iran funeral triggers new clashes


    Government supporters and opposition activists clash at funeral procession for student killed in Tehran.

    Last Modified: 16 Feb 2011 13:12 GMT
    Government supporters and opposition groups both claim Sane’e Zhaleh was a member of their ranks [Reuters] 

    Clashes have broken out between supporters of the Iranian government and apparent members of the opposition at the funeral for a student killed in recent protests, state television has reported.

    “Students and people participating in the funeral of martyr Sane’e Zhale in Tehran Fine Arts University are clashing with a few apparently from the sedition movement,” the website of broadcaster Irib said on Wednesday.

    Zhaleh was shot dead during an opposition rally in Tehran, the capital, on Monday, a killing the government blamed on anti-government protesters. But opposition groups say it was carried out by security forces.

    The violence broke out during the funeral procession from the art faculty at Tehran’s university, where Zhaleh was a student, Irib said.

    The broadcaster added that government backers were chanting “Death to Monafeghin”, a reference to an outlawed opposition group, which “forced them [opposition supporters] out of the scene”.

    However, Iranian bloggers reported that loyalist forces were brought into the campus who then took over the faculty, while riot police were deployed across the city.

    Others have also written on social networking site Twitter that some roads in the city have been blocked and that thousands of people were out on the streets of Tehran, demonstrating both for and against the government.

    There are also reports that authorities have blocked foreign media from working.

    Government supporters have insisted that Zhaleh was a member of the Basij militia – a volunteer force connected to the elite Revolutionary Guards, while opposition groups say he came from their ranks.

    Rahesabz.net, an opposition website, said Zhaleh was “pro-Mousavi and a member of the Green Movement,” referring to the group led by Mir Hossein Mousavi, which refuses to acknowledge the presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

    “His family was under pressure to say he is Basiji and pro-government,” the website said.

    Calls for Friday rally

    Government supporters have called a rally in Tehran on Friday to express “hatred” against the opposition movement.

    “The noble people of Tehran will take to Enghelab Square after Friday prayers with their solid and informed presence,” the Islamic Propagation Co-ordination Council said on Wednesday.

    It said those joining the rally will “scream out their hatred, wrath and disgust against the savage crimes and evil movements of sedition leaders, their Monafeghin [hypocrites] and their monarchist allies.”

    “I am warning that before it is too late, take out the buds from your ears and listen to the voice of the people. Forcing violence and opposing peoples’ wishes will last only for a certain time”Mehdi Karroubi, opposition leader

    Iran’s prosecutor general Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejeie warned that action would be taken against Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, another opposition leader.

    “The heads of seditions are the people who should be punished for their criminal acts and God willing actions in this regard are being taken,” Mohseni Ejeie said, according to Fars news agency.

    Meanwhile Mousavi and Karroubi both made statements online on Wednesday criticising authorities and calling for further protests against the government.

    Karroubi, in a statement posted on his website Sahamnews.org, said he was “ready to pay any price” in his fight.

    “I am warning that before it is too late, take out the buds from your ears and listen to the voice of the people. Forcing violence and opposing peoples’ wishes will last only for a certain time,” he said.

    In a separate statement on his own website Kaleme.com, Mousavi praised protesters for turning out in Monday’s rally in Tehran.

    “The glorious rally on 25th Bahman [February 14] is a great achievement for the great people of a great nation and for the Green Movement,” he said.

    Execution threats

    The comments by Mousavi and Karroubi, who have been under house arrest for the last week, come a day after Iranian politicians called for their execution.

    “Mousavi and Karroubi should be executed! Death to Mousavi, Karroubi and Khatami!” ministers shouted in parliament.

    They also accused the United States, Britain and Israel for orchestrating the protests through the opposition leaders.

    Two people, including Zhaleh, were killed in the capital on Monday and dozens wounded, after riot police fired tear gas and paintballs at demonstrators.

    Nine security forces were injured, state television said, while between 150 and 1,500 people were detained, according to official media and human rights groups.

    In a statement issued late on Tuesday, President Ahmadinejad said that the “enemies” who planned the anti-government protests in Tehran will fail to achieve their goals.

    “It is evident and clear that the Iranian nation has enemies because it is a country which wants to shine and achieve its peak and wants to change relations [between countries] in the world,” he said in a live  interview on state television.

    Al Jazeera and agencies

    A tale of two protests


    The subdued US reaction to events in Egypt sits in sharp contrast to its previous support for Iranian protesters.

    Mohammed Khan Last Modified: 01 Feb 2011 09:39 GMT
    Is the US hearing the Egyptian call for freedom? [GALLO/GETTY] 

    Cast your minds back to June 2009 and the aftermath of Iran’s disputed presidential elections. Months of unrest following the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and severe crackdowns meted out by the state security apparatus captured the airwaves not only in the Middle East but across the globe.

    International news organisations devoted considerable time and energy to Iran’s supposed “Green Revolution”. Western governments, already ramping up pressure on the Iranian leadership over the latter’s controversial nuclear programme, piped in with further vitriol against the Islamic Republic, condemning the leadership for its suppression of protesters.

    Here is what the US president said back then: “I strongly condemn these unjust actions [by the Iranian state]” against the protesters. The US and the entire world are “appalled and outraged” by Iran’s efforts to crush the opposition. While denying that the US was seeking to interfere in Iran’s domestic affairs, Barack Obama added: “But we must also bear witness to the courage and dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society.”

    The Iranian authorities responded by attempting to stop those channels of communication that best captured modern protests: Social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter were targeted for closure.

    What did the American authorities do in return? They pressed Twitter to continue providing services in Iran by abandoning a scheduled maintenance shutdown in order to aid the demonstrators. According to a state department official at the time: “One of the areas where people are able to get out the word is through Twitter. They [Twitter] announced they were going to shut down their system for maintenance and we asked them not to.” So far so good.

    The US government relentlessly pursued the “rights” of Iranians to protest peacefully and without intimidation and continued to castigate the Iranian authorities for the mass round up and ill treatment of demonstrators.

    Such was the vehemence with which the US made its feelings known, that the Iranian leadership in turn accused the Americans of instigating the protests in an effort to topple the regime. With over 30 years of bad blood between the two countries, there was little surprise that the instability unleashed in post-election Iran provided a convenient opportunity for the US to unsettle Iran’s rulers.

    Selective hearing?

    Now fast-forward by less than two years to the present. On January 25, 2011 mass demonstrations broke out in Cairo against a despotic regime which has been politically suffocating a population of some 80 million people for almost 30 years.

    Having lived under emergency rule since 1981, the people of Egypt finally rallied for liberty, and in the process braved the worst excesses of a police state. On that day alone, around 860 protestors were hounded by the much-feared secret police, arrested and beaten. Another three were killed. A number of foreign journalists also felt the full force of Egyptian “law”.

    The popular revolution train which many “freedom-loving” nations across the world had so keenly anticipated had finally arrived in Egypt. So you would expect the “leader of the free world”, the US, to welcome the cry for freedom in Egypt, right? Well, not quite.

    After berating the Iranian government for its heavy-handedness against civilians, senior US officials entered the Egyptian fray with a completely different attitude.

    Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, offered a particular gem of advice to Egyptians, which inevitably had the effect of rubbing salt in the protesters’ wounds. While urging “all parties” to “exercise restraint” (why the actions of the demonstrators were equated to those of the security forces is anyone’s guess), Clinton added the following caveat: “Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people.”

    Two days later, as the demonstrations showed little sign of ebbing, Clinton’s kid-gloves handling of the Egyptian government similarly showed little signs of wavering. This time, she said, the Egyptian government was facing “an important opportunity to implement political, economic and social reforms that respond to legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people”. Many an Arab dictator must similarly be relishing the “important opportunities” ahead to implement change!

    As for the need to keep open all communications channels for protesters, reports quickly surfaced that the Egyptian authorities were blocking access to Facebook and Twitter. “We urge the Egyptian authorities not to prevent peaceful protests or block communications including on social media sites,” Clinton retorted. The generous “urge” was unlikely to be heeded.

    As the determination of the Egyptian protesters stiffened and the country witnessed an unprecedented bout of “people power” – despite the repression thrust upon them by Mubarak’s ill-disciplined police units – the US found itself increasingly walking a shaky tightrope. With phone conversations between US and Egyptian officials accelerating, Mubarak was now being “urged” to take “concrete steps” for reform.

    After five days of unrelenting protests, and sensing that the Egyptian masses were not buying into the US’ expression of concern, American officials finally dropped what to Mubarak would have sounded like a bombshell: “We want to see an orderly transition so that no-one fills a void, that there not be a void, that there be a well thought-out plan that will bring about a democratic participatory government,” Clinton announced.

    An “orderly transition” can mean a myriad of things but Clinton was careful to balance her words with a warning against moving to a new government where “oppression” could take root, a not too subtle attempt to taint Egypt’s most popular movement, the Muslim Brotherhood.

    Policy by ideology

    US policy in the Middle East is naturally driven by ideology and self-interest. It is a policy built on defining allies and foes. Those that have traditionally demonstrated antipathy to US pursuits in the region have been deemed outcasts and vilified whilst those who have acquiesced, to the point of subservience, are flushed with cash and platitudes. The examples of Iran and Egypt are striking in this regard.

    Since the Iranian revolution in 1979, relations between the Islamic Republic and the US have been practically non-existent. Given that the revolution itself was fervently anti-American with Iran ridding itself of US influence, the bitterness that ensued is self-evident. Little in the way of compromise has been reached since the early days of the revolution and any rapprochement (however limited) has been met with suspicion and half-heartedness.

    That the US blames Iran for a plethora of the Middle East region’s problems and Iran continues to harbour deep distrust of the “Great Satan” is unlikely to change anytime soon. So despite Iran having a political system which arguably allows for real popular representation (the country’s presidency has changed hands six times since 1979, mostly through elections – and no that does not mean that it is liberal democratic) the US is transfixed on finding the smallest fault with Iran and badgering the country into submission.

    Some distance west of Iran sits the Arab world’s most populous nation, Egypt. Since the ascension of Hosni Mubarak as president in 1981, the country has been ruled by an iron fist. Not only does Mubarak not tolerate dissent but his regime has imprisoned opponents with such audacity that his antics make Iran look moderate.

    Having sat on the presidential throne for almost three decades, Mubarak is showing little inclination to renounce his position or to loosen his grip. Prior to the latest civil unrest, the Mubarak clan was gearing up to the potential elevation of the president’s son, Gamal, as the next ruler.

    The severe clampdown on street protesters has brought to the fore the depth of repression which the Mubarak regime has unleashed over many years. Given the disgust with which the president is held in the country, you would think that the global forces of “liberation” would be rallying to the Egyptian people’s cry for help. How wrong, again.

    Egypt is the second largest recipient of US military and economic aid (after Israel) in the world, to the tune of some $1.5bn annually. It is the standard-bearer of the “moderate” Middle East camp, as defined by the US. It is only one of two (Jordan being the other) major Arab countries to have signed a peace deal with Israel. It is enforcing the isolation of the Palestinian Hamas movement in the Gaza Strip. It is vehemently opposed to Iran. It does not tolerate Islamic movements and the regime is seen as a bulwark against “Islamism,” notably by suppressing the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a haven for foreign investment and liberal economic policies. All in all, Egypt’s authoritarian leadership is befitting of US policy in the region and therefore Egypt’s interests are the US’ interests.

    That the regime can willy-nilly abuse and silence its population is of little concern. Now that the public have spoken, we are told this presents an “important opportunity” for Mubarak to implement reform; reform that has been lacking for decades.

    What will happen next in Egypt is uncertain. The street protesters are refusing to be silenced and their brazenness in the face of a well equipped security force is admirable.

    The people of Iran will most likely be following events as they unfold in Egypt with keen interest, whether on their satellite receivers or through Facebook and Twitter.

    As for the Egyptian people, time will tell whether they will break the shackles of despotism. One thing that is becoming clear to them, however, is this: The US government is proving to be no friend of theirs.

    Mohammed Khan is a political analyst based in the UAE.
    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.



    Pax Americana

    Empire looks at the dramatic changes taking place in the Arab world and their strategic implications.
    Empire Last Modified: 08 Feb 2011 09:42 GMT
     The fear factor has been broken, the genie is out of the bottle. Arabs have taken to the streets demanding freedom. As the winds of change blew across the Arab world, the US, the power that has long dominated the region, has been particularly absent.With all its allies crumbling one after another, what will the US do to maintain its influence in the region? And what can be expected of Israel, the country’s closest ally in the region?Will the spread of democracy lead to a peaceful end to decades of autocratic rule in the Middle East or will the fear of Islamist extremism galvinise Washington’s resolve to reinforce Pax Americana?Our guests today are: Rashid Khalidi, a professor of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia University; Seymour Hersh, a Pulitzer-winning author; and Thomas Pickering, the former US under secretary of state.

    Our interviewees are: Clovis Maksoud, the director of the Center for the Global South; and Rob Malley, the Middle East director of International Crisis Group.

    This special episode of Empire aired from Monday, February 7, 2011.


    Egypt’s Facebook Freedom Fighter, Wael Ghonim

    by Mike Giglio

    Wael Ghonim worked a day job at Google, but at night he was organizing a revolution. In this week’s Newsweek, Mike Giglio on how the man once known only as El Shaheeed sparked an uprising.

    The telephone call from Cairo came late on Thursday, Jan. 27. “I think they’re following me,” the caller told the friend on the other end. “I’m going to destroy this phone.”

    And then the line went dead.

    Soon after, so did cellphones across Egypt, and then the Internet, as authorities cut communication in a last-ditch effort to halt the protests gripping the country.

    The only trace the caller left was in cyberspace, where he had delivered a haunting message via Twitter: “Pray for #Egypt.”

    Three days later in Washington, D.C., Nadine Wahab, an Egyptian émigré and media-relations professional, sat staring at her computer, hoping rumors of the caller’s disappearance weren’t true.

    Suddenly his screen name flashed to life. She stared at the message.

    “Admin 1 is missing,” it said. “This is Admin 2.”

    Admin 1 was the caller, the anonymous administrator of a Facebook page that had played a crucial role in inspiring the uprising in Cairo. He had left Wahab with a contingency plan. If he disappeared, Wahab should wait until Feb. 8, two weeks from the date of the first protest, before she revealed his identity and sounded the alarm. At all costs, she was to maintain the appearance of normalcy on the page.

    The contingency plan had made no mention of an Admin 2, and Wahab worried that the message might be a trap.

    For the next week, Wahab and her small cadre of online associates became immersed in what seemed like a shadowy cyberthriller. At its center was a bespectacled techie named Wael Ghonim, a 30-year-old father of two, and Google’s head of marketing in the Middle East.

    “My purpose,” wrote Wael Ghonim, “is to increase the bond between the people and the group through my unknown personality. This way we create an army of volunteers.”

    Article - Giglio Blogger Khaled Desouki / Getty Images

    Months of online correspondence between Ghonim and Wahab, parts of which were provided to Newsweek, as well as telephone and online conversations with the magazine, reveal a man who adopted a dead man’s identity to push for democracy, taking on a secret life that nearly consumed him.

    Ghonim had received a master’s degree in marketing and finance from American University in Cairo and began working for Google in late 2008. In little more than a year, he was promoted to head of marketing for the Middle East and North Africa, a position based in Dubai, where he and his family moved into a house in one of the city’s affluent suburbs.

    Ghonim and Wahab met electronically last spring, after Ghonim volunteered to run the Facebook fan page of Mohamed ElBaradei, the Egyptian Nobel Prize winner who had emerged as a key opposition leader; Wahab offered to help with PR. Ghonim had a strong tech background, having already founded several successful Web ventures. But it was his marketing skills that would fuel his transformation into Egypt’s most important cyberactivist.

    Under Ghonim, ElBaradei’s page, which promoted democratic reform, grew rapidly. He surveyed its fans for input, pushing ideas like crowdsourced video Q&As. “Voting is the right way to represent people in a democratic way,” he wrote Wahab in May. “We use it even inside Google internally. Even when our CEO is live, if someone posts a tough question and others vote, he must answer it.”

    HIER verder lezen



    ‘Day of rage’ kicks off in Libya


    Protesters have reportedly taken to the streets in four cities despite a crackdown, heeding to calls for mass protests.

    Last Modified: 17 Feb 2011 07:55 GMT
    The protesters blame Gaddafi’s government for unemployment, inequality and limits on political freedoms [EPA] 

    Protesters in Libya have defied a security crackdown and taken to the streets in four cities for a “day of rage,” inspired by uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, reports say.

    Several hundred supporters of Muammar Gaddafi, the country’s longtime leader, have also reportedly gathered in the capital on Thursday to counter online calls for anti-government protests.

    New York-based Human Rights Watch said that Libyan authorities had detained 14 activists, writers and protesters who had been preparing the anti-government protests.

    Libya has been tightly controlled for over 40 years by Gaddafi, who is now Africa’s longest-serving leader.

    According to reports on Twitter, the microblogging site, Libya’s regime had been sending text messages to people warning them that live bullets will be fired if they join today’s protests.

    Thursday is the anniversary of clashes that took place on February 17, 2006, in the country’s second largest city of Benghazi when security forces killed several protesters who were attacking the city’s Italian consulate.

    Ibrahim Jibreel, a Libyan opposition member based in Barcelona, told Al Jazeera, “I think the demonstrations are going to be rather serious.

    “Libyan people have been oppressed for more than 41 years and they see to the west and to the east of them, people have been able to rise and to change their fate.”

    At least two people were killed in clashes between Libyan security forces and demonstrators on Wednesday, in the town of al-Baida, east of Benghazi.

    The victims were identified as Khaled ElNaji Khanfar and Ahmad Shoushaniya.

    Angry chants

    Wednesday’s deaths come as hundreds of protesters reportedly torched police outposts while chanting: “People want the end of the regime.”

    At least 38 people were also injured in the clashes, including 10 security officials.

    “All the people of Baida are out on the streets,” a 25-year-old Rabie al-Messrati, who said he had been arrested after spreading a call for protests on Facebook, said.

    Violent protests were also reported earlier in the day in Benghazi.

    In a telephone interview with Al Jazeera, Idris Al-Mesmari, a Libyan novelist and writer, said that security officials in civilian clothes came and dispersed protesters in Benghazi using tear gas, batons and hot water.

    Al-Mesmari was arrested hours after the interview.


    Late on Wednesday evening, it was impossible to contact witnesses in Benghazi because telephone connections to the city appeared to be out of order.

    State media reported there were pro-Gaddafi protests too across the country, with people chanting “We sacrifice our blood and souls for you, our leader!” and “We are a generation built by Muammar and anyone who opposes it will be destroyed!”

    However, Jibreel said, “There are few who come out in support of the dictator in Libya and they are not going to succeed.

    “We are trying to get the voices out of Libya, we are trying to get media attention to the plight of the Libyan people, to get the media to focus on the injustices that are happening in Libya.

    “We are urging the governments and diplomatic missions that are in Libya to act as observers, to document the abuses that are going to happen and we know that they are going to happen because this is a totalitarian, brutal regime,” he added.

    As the wave of unrest spread south and westwards across the country, hundreds of people marched through the streets in the southern city of Zentan, 120km south of the capital Tripoli.

    They set fire to security headquarters and a police station, then set up tents in the heart of the town.

    Chants including “No God but Allah, Muammar is the enemy of Allah,” can be heard on videos of demonstrations uploaded to YouTube.

    Independent confirmation was not possible as Gaddafi’s government keeps tight control over the movements of media personnel.

    Online activism

    In a country where public dissent is rare, plans for Thursday’s protests were being circulated by anonymous activists on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.

    One Facebook group urging a “Day of Anger” in Libya, which had 4,400 members on Monday, saw that number more than double to 9,600 by Wednesday.

    Social media sites were reportedly blocked for several hours through the afternoon, but access was restored in the evening.

    Al Jazeera is understood to have been taken off the state-owned cable TV network, but is still reportedly available on satellite networks.

    People posting messages on opposition site www.libya-watanona.com, which is based outside Libya, urged Libyans to protest.

    “From every square in our beloved country, people should all come together in one city and one square to make this regime and its supporters afraid, and force them to run away because they are cowards,” said a post on the website.

    Also calling for reforms are some of Libya’s eminent individuals. A group of prominent figures and members of human rights organisations have demanded the resignation of Gaddafi.

    The demands came in a statement signed by 213 prominent Libyans from different segments of the society, including  political activists, lawyers, students, and government officials.

    Oil factor

    Though some Libyans complain about unemployment, inequality and limits on political freedoms, analysts say that an Egypt-style revolt is unlikely because the government can use oil revenues to smooth over most social problems.

    Libya accounts for about 2 per cent of the world’s crude oil exports.

    Companies including Shell, BP and Eni have invested billions of dollars in tapping its oil fields, home to the largest proven reserves in Africa.


    Een sceptisch geluid van Maarten van Rossem (http://www.maartenonline.nl/00/mt/nl/0/weblog/432/Na_de_euforie.html):

    Maarten van Rossem

    Na de euforie

    Door Maarten van Rossem – Eergisteren – 7 reacties

    klik om een oordeel te geven!

    Het was ontroerend hoe de mensen in Egypte op het Tahrirplein en elders feest vierden na het vertrek van president Mubarak. We waren via de televisie steeds live getuige van de gebeurtenissen; wellicht hebben de kijkers ook nog een traantje weggepinkt.

    Maar wat is er nu eigenlijk structureel veranderd in Egypte? Afgezien van het vertrek van Mubarak weinig. De ware machthebber is het leger dat sinds 1952 aan de macht is en sindsdien steeds een sterke man naar voren schoof als Sadat en Mubarak. Ook nu de laatste weg is, is aan die basissituatie niets veranderd.

    Het leger bezit een sterke – in feite de enige – echte machtspositie in de samenleving. En er is nog geen enkele indicatie dat het nu afstand wil doen van de macht. De militairen hebben het dan ook slim gespeeld. Ze leken de afgelopen weken op de hand van het volk en onthielden zich van geweld tegen de burgers.

    De belangen van leger en volk lopen sterk uiteen. Egypte kent geen ontwikkeld systeem van politieke partijen, geen democratische traditie, geen rechtsstatelijke traditie en er bestaat niet zoiets als een georganiseerd maatschappelijk middenveld. Ook zijn de verschillen in inkomen tussen arm en rijk zeer groot.

    De vraag is wat democratie Egypte zou brengen. Ik denk vooral narigheid. De structurele problemen van het land zijn nauwelijks op te lossen. Er is een omvangrijke bevolking, met veel jongeren waarvoor geen werk is. Er is wel enige economische groei, maar die is onvoldoende om al deze jongeren aan werk te helpen. Het is een recept voor aanhoudende ontevredenheid. In een prille democratie zou het leger bij onrust en verwarring waarschijnlijk al snel weer naar de macht grijpen.

    Zo bezien was er geen revolutie in Egypte, want de structuur van de samenleving is niet veranderd. Het leger heeft de macht nog altijd stevig in handen, de regering die nota bene onder Mubarak is gevormd heeft het dagelijks bestuur op zich genomen en het parlement is ontbonden. Intussen is de energie van de betogers weggelekt en is het Tahrirplein weer open voor verkeer.

    Of andere regimes dan die in Tunesie en Egypte werkelijk ernstig in de problemen zullen komen, moeten we nog maar afwachten. Van de euforische verwachting dat – alles nu anders wordt – blijkt meestal niet veel te kloppen.




    « Back to Home

    12 Feb 11 2011 by Nadine Naber
    [Image from unknown archive] [Image from unknown archive]

    “. . . I’m making this video to give you one simply message: We want to go down to Tahrir Square on January 25. If we still have honor and want to live with dignity on this land, we have to go down on January 25. We’ll go down and demand our rights, our fundamental human rights…The entire government is corrupt—a corrupt president and a corrupt security force…If you stay home, you deserve what will happen to you…and you’ll be guilty, before your nation and your people…Go down to the street, send SMS’s, post it post it on the ‘net. Make people aware…you know your own social circle, your building, your family, your friends, tell them to come with us. Bring 5 people, or 10 people; if each of us manages to bring 5 or 10 people to Tahrir Square…talk to people and tell them, this is enough! It will make a difference, a big difference…never say there’s no hope…so long you come down with us, there will be hope…don’t think you can be safe any more! None of us are! Come down with us and demand your rights my rights, you family’ rights. I am going down on January 25th and I will say ‘no’ to corruption, ‘no’ to this regime.”


    These are the words of Asmaa Mahfouz, a 26 year old woman whose Jan. 18 vlog is said to have helped mobilize the million that turned up in Cairo and the thousands in other cities on Jan 25. Asmaa’s vlog, like the stories of many Egyptian women of this revolution offer up a challenge to two key questions framing U.S. discourse on the Jan. 25 Egyptian revolution:

    1) Where are the women?

    2) and…”but what if Islamic extremists take over?”  

    Often ignored in U.S. discussions on Egypt is how protests led by labor unions—many women-based labor unions in the manufacturing cities of Egypt—have catalyzed the Egyptian revolution (Paul Amar, 02-05-11). The women now holding down Tahrir Square as we speak—are of all ages and social groups and their struggle cannot be explained through Orientalist tropes that reduce Arab women to passive victims of culture or religion or Islam. They are active participants in a grassroots people-based struggle against poverty and state corruption, rigged elections, repression, torture, and police brutality. They are leading marches; attending the wounded, and participating in identity checks of state supported thugs. They have helped create human shields to protect Egyptian Antiquities Museum, the Arab League Headquarters, and one another. They have helped organize neighborhood watch groups and committees nationwide in order to protect private and public property. They are fighting against dictatorship among millions of people-not guided by any one sect or political party—united under one slogan: we want and end to this regime. Master Mimz—protest rapper in the UK best represents my point in the lyrics to her song: Back Down Mubarak…where she states:

    “First give me a job—then lets talk about my hijab

    For anyone wondering about the oppression of Arab women, the women of this revolution have indeed suffered—Professor Noha Radwan was attacked and beaten half to death by Mubarak thugs who ripped her shirt open and had stitches in her head. Several women—and men are now martyrs (they are now over 300).  Amira, killed by a police officer; Liza Mohamed Hasan, hit by a police car; Sally Zahran, hit by a Mubarak thug in the back of the head with a bat, went home to sleep and never woke up.

    Since the demonstrations pushed the police out of the center of Cairo, several women have made statements such as this: “It’s the first time that I have never been harassed in Cairo”—Egyptian police are notorious for sexual harassment and gender-based violence. 

    Some Egyptian women are also on the frontlines of the war over ideas—fighting the Egyptian state TV and exposing the contradictions between U.S. discourses on democracy and U.S. practices. As Mubarak’s regime pays thugs to run over peaceful demonstrators, stab them and kill them, many women have expressed outraged over Obama and Clinton’s advice that: “both sides need to refrain from violence.”

    Aida Seif Al Dawla is a leading human rights activist with Nadeem Center for psychological rehabilitation of victims of violence and torture. By extention, her work, like the work of many Egyptian feminists and human rights activists fighting against state violence, involves confronting U.S. imperial relations with the Mubarak regime. Today, the people of the revolution are outraged over the U.S.’ unanswered loyalty to Mubarak as well as Obama’s backing of vice president Omar Suleiman and the lack of discussion about Suleiman’s role in Egyptian torture and his important role in the US rendition-to-torture program. U.S. leaders have called Suleiman a distinguished and respected man. They use these words to describe the coordinator of the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program, an extrajudicial procedure in which suspected terrorists are transferred illegally to countries like Egypt that are known to use torture during interrogation. Consider, for instance, the case of the Pakistani man Habib—in which the CIA passed Habib to Omar Suleiman in Egypt. Habib was then repeatedly zapped with high-voltage electricity, immersed in water up to his nostrils, beaten, his fingers were broken and he was hung from metal hooks. After Suleiman’s men extracted Habib’s confession, he was transferred back to US custody, where his testimony became the basis of his eventual imprisonment at Guantanamo.U.S. policy helps sustain the structures of torture and violence in Egypt. As Egyptian American media pundit Mona Tehawy puts it: U.S.’ “stability” comes at the expense of freedom and dignity of the people of my or any country.” 

    Of course a democratic Egypt would benefit women. The government recently passed a law restricting the work of civil society organizations, many of them led by women. The current regime is responsible for widespread human rights violations, including intense forms of harassment and violence against women, which many organizations such as Nazra for Feminist Studies, the Egyptian Center for Women’s Rights, and the Egyptian Association for Community Participation Enhancement

    , have well-documented.

    So rather than asking, “where are the women,” we might ask:

    Why does much of U.S. public discourse frame the revolution through Islamophobia logics and why has the corporate media focused mostly on images of Egyptian men? 

    Islamophobia fuels popular U.S. discourses on Egypt and drives the question: what if Islamic fundamentalists take over Egypt? And it this very discourse that legitimizes the U.S. administration’s complicity in Mubarak’s violent efforts to quell the revolution. This explains why my public expressions of hope for the success of the revolution and for democratization in Egypt are often been met with a sense of grave concern: “but what if Islamic fundamentalists take over?” These questions must be understood in terms of an imperial psyche, a state of consciousness that is driven by panic over Islamic fundamentalism and that works as a blocking operation, or a rationale against supporting the Egyptian revolution. These questions must be located in the historical trajectory of the post-Cold War era in which particular strands of U.S. liberal feminism and U.S. imperialism have worked in tandem. Both rely upon a humanitarian logic that justifies military intervention, occupation, and bloodshed as strategies for promoting “democracy and women’s rights.” This humanitarian logic disavows U.S.-state violence against people of the Arab and Muslim regions rendering it acceptable and even, liberatory, particularly for women. Islamophobic panic over the future of Egypt similarly de-centers the U.S.-backed Mubarak regime’s past and present repression. It denies historical conditions such as the demographic realities in Egypt, the complex, multidimensional place of the Muslim Brotherhood in the revolution, and the predominance of secular visions for the future of Egypt. Islamophobia thus legitimizes complicity with dictatorship and U.S. empire, producing this message for the Egyptian people: “Its best that you continue to live under tyranny.” Gender fuels Islamophobia, requiring “the Arab woman” to be nothing more than an abject being, an invisible sisters, wife, or mother of “the real revolutionaries.” Islamophobia legitimizes itself through the disappearance of Egyptian women as active agents in the revolution. 

    I do not intend to be overly celebratory. We have learned from history that following the revolution, women are often pushed back to the sidelines, away from center stage.

    We might also then ask, if Egypt enters a democratization period, will the voices of the women of Tahrir remain center stage? And what are the possibilities for a democratization of rights in Egypt– all civic rights—in which women’s participation, the rights of women, family law, and the right to organize, protest, and express freedom of speech remain central? And what are the possibilities for international solidarity with Egyptian women and Egyptian people—amidst a war of ideas that often obstructs the possibility to see Arab or Muslim women and as human– and as rightful agents of their own discourses, governments, and destinies? It has become increasingly clear that this revolution is much greater than a conflict between Egyptian state and non-state actors. Egyptian women’s rights, like the rights of all Egyptians are entangled in the global, imperial relation between the U.S., Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, and other repressive regimes of the region and beyond. Only when we can take these local and imperial forces seriously can we begin to understand the oppression millions of Egyptian people are determined to end. The people of Tahrir and all the demonstrators of Egypt have spoken and said, we will not betray the blood of our martyrs–we will not give up until Mubarak steps down. It remains to be seen what the transitional period will look like but one thing is clear: it must be led by the people of Egypt. And as the Egyptian movement for freedom and democracy continues, will U.S. social movements—whether feminist, anti-war, or beyond—forget the imperial past and the blood of the Egyptian martyrs or commit to holding the U.S. and Israel accountable for complicity with dictatorship and thirty-plus years of repression in Egypt?  

    * I prepared this piece as a public speech for a public event at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Feb. 7, 2011.

    Een democratische omwenteling in de Arabische Wereld? Deel 4 – 4 ثورة ديمقراطية في العالم العربي؟ جزء


    nieuws en artikelenoverzicht van de actuele gebeurtenissen in de Arabische wereld deel 4 (zie ook deel 1, deel 2 en deel 3)



    Chronologisch overizcht van dag tot dag (op de site van de NOS): http://nos.nl/artikel/215322-chronologie-onrust-arabische-wereld.html

    Voor de nieuwste ontwikkelingen, bekijk hieronder: 

    Al-Jazeera English live


    Palestinian Authority closes Al-Jazeera office

    klik op bovenstaand logo


    Defiant Mubarak refuses to resign


    Egyptian president vows to remain in office until his term ends in September, and not bow down to ‘foreign pressure’.

    Last Modified: 10 Feb 2011 21:49 GMT
    Thousands thronged Tahrir Square after the army’s statement, in anticipation of Mubarak possibly resigning [EPA] 

    Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president, has refused to step down from his post, saying that he will not bow to “foreign pressure” in a televised address to the nation.

    Mubarak announced that he had put into place a framework that would lead to the amendment of six constitutional articles in the address late on Thursday night.

    “I can not and will not accept to be dictated orders from outside, no matter what the source is,” Mubarak said.

    He said he was addressing his people with a “speech from the heart”.

    Click here for more of Al Jazeera’s special coverage 

    Mubarak said that he is “totally committed to fulfilling all the promises” that he has earlier made regarding constitutional and political reform.

    “I have laid down a vision … to exit the current crisis, and to realise the demands voiced by the youth and citizens … without undermining the constitution in a manner that ensures the stability of our society,” he said.

    Mubarak said he had “initiated a very constructive national dialogue … and this dialogue has yielded preliminary agreement in stances and vews”.

    He said he would stick by his earlier announcment of not seeking re-election in September, though he did delegate some powers to Omar Suleiman, the vice-president.

    A state of emergency, which has been in place since Mubarak took power 30 years ago, remains in place, though the president promised to lift it as some unspecified point in the future.

    “I will remain adamant to shoulder my responsibility, protecting the constitution and safeguarding the interests of Egyptians [until the next elections].

    “This is the oath I have taken before God and the nation, and I will continue to keep this oath,” he said.

    Mubarak said the current “moment was not against my personality, against Hosni Mubarak”, and concluded by saying that he would not leave Egyptian soil until he was “buried under it”.

    Mubarak’s comments were not well-received by hundreds of thousands gathered at Cairo’s Tahrir [Liberation] Square and in other cities, who erupted into angry chants against him. Pro-democracy protesters had been expecting Mubarak to resign, and their mood of celebration quickly turned to extreme anger as they heard the president’s speech.

    Rawya Rageh, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Liberation Square said the “mood completely altered as the president progressed with his speech”, with protesters expressing “frustration and anger” at him.

    Hundreds took off their shoes and waved them angrily at a screen showing Mubarak’s speech, shouting “Leave, leave!”

    ‘Go back home’

    Omar Suleiman, the vice-president, addressed the nation in a televised address shortly after Mubarak’s speech, and called on protesters to “go back home” and “go back to work”.

    He said he had been delegated by the president “the responsibilities to safeguard the stability of Egypt, to safeguard its … assets … to restore peace and security to the Egyptian public, and to restore the normal way of life”.

    He said that a process of dialogue with the opposition had yielded positive results, and that “a roadmap has been laid down to achieve the majority of demands”.

    The vice-president said that steps had to be taken to “safeguard the revolution of the youth”, but also called for protesters to “join hands” with the government, rather than risk “chaos”.

    He told Egyptians “not [to] listen to satellite television stations, whose main purpose is to fuel sedition and to drive a wedge among people”.

    Army meeting

    Earlier, the Supreme Council of Egyptian Armed Forces had met to discuss the ongoing protests against Mubarak’s government.

    In a statement entitled ‘Communique Number One’, televised on state television, the army said it had convened the meeting response to the current political turmoil, and that it would continue to convene such meetings.

    Thurday’s meeting was chaired by Mohamed Tantawi, the defence minister, rather than Mubarak, who, as president, would normally have headed the meeting.

    “Based on the responsibility of the armed forces and its commitment to protect the people and its keenness to protect the nation… and in support of the legitimate demands of the people [the army] will continue meeting on a continuous basis to examine measures to be taken to protect the nation and its gains and the ambitions of the great Egyptian people,” the statement.

    Tens of thousands poured into Tahrir Square after the army statement was televised. Thousands also gathered in Alexandria, Egypt’s second city, our correspondent there said.

    Earlier, Hassan al-Roweni, an Egyptian army commander, told protesters in the square that “everything you want will be realised”.

    Hassam Badrawi, the secretary general of the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), told the BBC and Channel 4 News earlier on that he expected Mubarak to hand over his powers to Omar Suleiman, the vice-president during his address.

    “I think the right thing to do now is to take the action that would satisfy … protesters,” Badrawi told BBC television in a live interview.

    Ahmed Shafiq, the country’s prime minister, also told the BBC that the president may step down on Thursday evening, and that the situation would be “clarified soon”. He told the Reuters news agency, however, that Mubarak remained in control, and that “everything is still in the hands of the president”.

    However, Anas el-Fekky, Egypt’s information minister, denied all reports of Mubarak resigning from early in the day.

    “The president is still in power and he is not stepping down,” el-Fekky told Reuters. “The president is not stepping down and everything you heard in the media is a rumour.”

    Mubarak met with Suleiman, the vice-president, at the presidential palace ahead of his address.

    ‘Witnessing history unfold’

    Mahmoud Zaher, a retired general in the Egyptian army, told Al Jazeera earlier in the day that Mubarak’s absence from the army meeting was a “clear and strong indication that [Mubarak] is no longer present”, implying that the Egyptian president was not playing a role in governance any longer.





    In short comments ahead of a scheduled speech at Northern Michigan University, Barack Obama, the US president, said the US was watching the situation in Egypt “very closely”. Mubarak had not spoken at that time.

    “What is absolutely clear is that we are witnessing history unfold,” he said, adding that this was a “moment of transformation” for Egypt.

    “Going forward, we want … all Egyptians to know that America will continue to do everything that we can to support an orderly and genuine transition to democracy.”

    Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, responded to reports that Mubarak may resign by saying that he hoped whoever replaced him would uphold Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel, according to an Israeli radio report.

    Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s foreign affairs chief, said that the 27-nation bloc is ready to help Egypt build a “deep democracy”.

    “I reiterated that no matter what happens in the next hours and days, the European Union stands ready to hep build the deep democracy that will underpin stability for the people of Egypt,” she said in a statement, referring to a conversation she had with Aboul Gheit, the Egyptian foreign minister, earlier in the day.

    Protesters had earlier responded to statements from political leaders as indicating that they had been successful in their key demand of wanting Mubarak to step down.

    Wael Ghonim, the Google executive who has played a key role in helping protesters get organised, said on the microblogging site Twitter on Thursday evening: “Mission accomplished. Thanks to all the brave young Egyptians.”

    Ahead of the speech, Jacky Rowland, our correspondent in Tahrir Square, described the atmosphere as “electric”, with “standing room only” in the central Cairo area. She said that thousands gathered there were “celebrating a victory which has been anticipated, rather than actually achieved”.

    In Alexandria, Jamal ElShayyal, our correspondent, said the atmosphere turned “from joyous to now furious” as Mubarak completed his speech.

    Labour union strikes

    The developments came as the 17th day of pro-democracy protests continued across the country on Thursday, with labour unions joining pro-democracy protesters.

    Egyptian labour unions held nationwide strikes for a second day, adding momentum to the pro-democracy demonstrations in Cairo and other cities. 

    Al Jazeera correspondents in Cairo reported that thousands of doctors, medical students and lawyers, the doctors dressed in white coats and the lawyers in black robes, marched in central Cairo earlier on Thursday and were hailed by pro-democracy protesters as they entered Tahrir [Liberation] Square.

    The artists syndicate and public transport workers, including bus drivers, also joined the strikes, our correspondents reported.

    Pro-democracy supporters across the country had early on Thursday called for a ten-million strong demonstration to take place after this week’s Friday prayers.

    Al Jazeera and agencies


    Mubarak stays, Egypt erupts in rage


    Egyptian leader disappointed and enraged pro-democracy protesters when he did not announce he would quit as they hoped.

    Last Modified: 10 Feb 2011 23:09 GMT
    Protesters in Cairo wave shoes in dismay as they learn that Mubarak would not be announcing his resignation [Reuters] 

    Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president, provoked rage on the country’s streets when, in an anticlimactic speech, he said he would hand some powers to his deputy, but disappointed protesters who had been expecting him to announce his resignation altogether after more than two weeks of unrest.

    “Leave! Leave!” chanted thousands who had gathered in Cairo’s Tahrir Square on Thursday in anticipation that a televised speech would be the moment their demands for an end to Mubarak’s 30 years of authoritarian, one-man rule were met.

    Instead, the 82-year-old former general portrayed himself as a patriot overseeing an orderly transition until elections in September, when his current term ends.

    The hush that had swept over the crowd in Tahrir Square at the start of Mubarak’s speech turned into an angry roar halfway through Mubarak’s speech, as it became clear that the defiant president would not be stepping down.

    Al Jazeera’s Aymen Mohyeldin, reporting from Cairo, said that the speech was received as “patronising” as he referred to Egyptians as his children, and he only re-enforced the idea that he is “entrenched in the notion that he will hold on to power”.

    Mubarak  praised the young people who have stunned the Arab world with unprecedented demonstrations, offering constitutional change and a bigger role for vice-president Omar Suleiman.

    Rabab Al Mahdi, a professor at the American University in Cairo, told Al Jazeera that the  “level of anger and frustration at the square is unprecedented”.

    “This is putting us into a messy situation that can turn bloody at any moment,” she said, adding that the fact that Mubarak “started a speech for more than 10 minutes, he was talking about himself – very narcissistic, again, giving the message that he’s still in control, and this, in and by itself, offended people.” 

    Feeling the pain

    “I have felt all the pain you felt,” said Mubarak, who last week had already pledged not to run again in September.

    “I will not go back on my response to your voice and your call.”

    Egypt’s revolt seek the ouster of Mubarak

    Al Jazeera’s Rawya Rageh, reporting from Cairo said that halfway through Mubarak’s speech, when the president spoke of his years in public service, people began taking off their shoes and waving them in the air in a dramatic Arab show of contempt.

    “You could also see tears in some of the people’s eyes … a lot of screams of anger, people just breaking down in tears, people just breaking down in pain,” said Rageh.

    She said that some people began to immediately mobilise for fresh protests on Friday in response to the speech.

    Egyptian state television was not broadcasting the scenes of anger after Mubarak’s speech.

    The people’s anger was not restricted to Cairo. In Alexandria, Egypt’s second largest city, crowds began roaring and shouting, heading toward the military base of the northern command to protest.

    Al Jazeera’s Jamal Elshayyal, reporting from Alexandria said that the pro-democracy protesters were “more offended than ever” at hearing that Mubarak intended to remain in power until September.

    “They really do not understand how president Mubarak cannot comprehend the strong sentiments which they have been expressing over the past two weeks,” said Elshayyal.

    The anger on the streets of Cairo and Alexandria, hours ahead of a planned “Day of Martyrs” protest on Friday to commemorate the 300 or more killed by security forces since January 25 appeared ominous in an environment where the army has been on the streets for two weeks, and on Thursday said it was in charge.

    “He [Mubarak] doesn’t seem to understand the magnitude of what is happening in Egypt. At this point I don’t think it will suffice,” said Alanoud al-Sharek at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. “He has performed quite a sleight of hand.

    He has transferred authority to Omar Suleiman while somehow retaining his position as ruler.”

    Suleiman, a 74-year-old former intelligence chief, is not widely popular with protesters who are seeking a complete break with the military-dominated system which has governed Egypt for the past six decades.

    Al Jazeera and agencies


    Egyptians hold ‘Farewell Friday’


    Protesters’ new push to force President Mubarak to step down may test the military’s loyalties.

    Last Modified: 11 Feb 2011 12:25 GMT
    Tahrir Square was totally packed as Friday noon prayer got under way [AFP] 

    Pro-democracy protesters in Egypt are calling for “millions” to take to the streets across the country in what could become the largest protests so far, a day after President Hosni Mubarak repeated his refusal to step down.

    Massive crowds gathered in Tahrir Square ahead on Friday, chanting “the army and the people are one, hand in hand”.

    In a statement read out on state television at midday, the military announced that it would lift a 30-year-old emergency law but only “as soon as the current circumstances end”.

    The military said it would also guarantee changes to the constitution as well as a free and fair election, and it called for normal business activity to resume.

    Many protesters had anticipated a much stronger statement. Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Tahrir Square said people there were hugely disappointed and vowed to take the protests to “a last and final stage”.

    “They’re frustrated, they’re angry, and they say protests need to go beyond Liberation [Tahrir] Square, to the doorstep of political institutions,” she said.

    Protest organisers have called for 20 million people to come out on “Farewell Friday” in a final attempt to force Mubarak to step down.  

    ‘Anything can happen’

    Hossam El Hamalawy, a pro-democracy organiser and member of the Socialist Studies Centre, said protesters were heading towards the presidential palace from multiple directions, calling on the army to side with them and remove Mubarak.

    “People are extremely angry after yesterday’s speech,” he told Al Jazeera. “Anything can happen at the moment. There is self-restrain all over but at the same time I honestly can’t tell you what the next step will be … At this time, we don’t trust them [the army commanders] at all.”

    An Al Jazeera reporter overlooking Tahrir said the side streets leading into the square were filling up with crowds.

    “It’s an incredible scene. From what I can judge, there are more people here today than yesterday night,” she said.

    Hundreds of thousands have gathered in downtown Alexandria for Friday prayers 

    “The military has not gone into the square except some top commanders, one asking people to go home … I don’t see any kind of tensions between the people and the army but all of this might change very soon if the army is seen as not being on the side of the people.”

    Hundreds of thousands were participating in Friday prayers outside a mosque in downtown Alexandria, Egypt’s second biggest city.

    Egyptian television reported that large angry crowds were heading from Giza, adjacent to Cairo, towards Tahrir Square and some would march on the presidential palace.

    Protests are also being held in the cities of Mahala, Tanta, Ismailia, and Suez.

    In a televised address to the nation on Thursday, Mubarak said he was handing “the functions of the president” to Vice-President Omar Suleiman. But the move means he retains his title of president.

    “I have decided to stick… by my responsibility in protecting the constitution and the people’s interests until the power and responsibility are handed over to whomever the voters chose next September, in free and fair elections,” the president said. 

    Halfway through his much-awaited speech late at night, anticipation turned into anger among protesters camped in Tahrir Squarewho began taking off their shoes and waving them in the air.

    ‘Go home’

    Immediately after Mubarak’s speech, Suleiman called on the protesters to “go home” and asked Egyptians to “unite and look to the future.”

    “Youth of Egypt, heroes of Egypt, go back to your homes and businesses. The country needs you so that we build, develop and create,” Suleiman said.

    “Do not listen to tendentious radios and satellite televisions which have no aim but ignite disorder, weaken Egypt and distort its image.”


    More than 1,000 protesters moved overnight towards the presidential palace in the upscale neighbourhood of Heliopolis in central Cairo.

    About 200 of them were there at Friday midday, chanting anti-Mubarak slogans while military commanders behind barbed wire guarded the palace, where several tanks have been deployed.

    Thousands of protesters have also been surrounding the radio and television building in Cairo, which they see as a mouthpiece for Mubarak’s regime.

    Union workers have joined the protests over the past few days, effectively crippling transportation and several industries, and dealing a sharper blow to Mubarak’s embattled regime.

    The US and EU said the announcement to transfer some powers to the vice-president was grossly insufficient and falls short of genuine reforms demanded by the people.

    “The Egyptian people have been told that there was a transition of authority, but it is not yet clear that this transition is immediate, meaningful or sufficient,” Barack Obama, the US president, said in a statement

    Mohamed ElBaradei, a leading opposition figure, said Egypt “will explode” as a result of Mubarak’s defiance and called on the Egyptian army to intervene “to save the country.”

    Al Jazeera and agencies


    Timeline: US indecision on Egypt


    Rundown of key statements made by Washington since the protests began against Hosni Mubarak.

    Last Modified: 10 Feb 2011 19:18 GMT
    US rhetoric regarding Egypt has continuously called for an ‘orderly transition’ [AFP] 

    January 25 – Day 1

    Protests begin in Egypt on the day Barack Obama, the US president, gives State of the Union address to Congress.

    Obama did not mention Egypt but did refer to protests in Tunisia, saying the US “supports the democratic aspirations of all people”.

    Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, gave the first high-level US response to the Egypt protests, saying: “Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people.”

    January 26 – Day 2

    Obama did not mention Egypt in prepared remarks during a visit to Wisconsin, as Egyptian police fought with thousands of people who defied a government ban to protest.

    Richard Gibbs, the White House spokesman, said “Egypt is a strong ally” when asked whether the US still backed Mubarak.

    Clinton urged Egyptian authorities to not prevent peaceful protests and not block communications.


    January 27 – Day 3

    As protests spread, Joe Biden, the US vice president, calls Mubarak an ally on Middle East peace efforts, saying: “I would not refer to him as a dictator”.

    Obama, in a YouTube interview, says reform “is absolutely critical for the long-term well-being of Egypt”.

    January 28 – Day 4

    The White House, in the strongest US reaction so far, said the country would review its $1.5bn in aid to Egypt.

    “We will be reviewing our assistance posture based on events that take place in the coming days,” Gibbs says.

    Officials later said no such review was currently planned.

    Obama spoke with Mubarak after the Egyptian president, in a televised statement, called for a national dialogue to avoid chaos.

    Obama said he urged Mubarak to undertake sweeping reforms “to meet the aspirations of the Egyptian people”.


    January 29 – Day 5Obama met his national security team on Egypt, as Mubarak dissolved his government and picked intelligence chief Omar Suleiman as vice president.

    PJ Crowley, the US state department spokesman, tweeted that the Egyptian leader “can’t reshuffle the deck and then stand pat”.


    January 30 – Day 6

    Clinton, on television talk shows, dodges questions about whether Mubarak should resign but brings the term “orderly transition” into the official US message for the first time.

    “We want to see an orderly transition so that no one fills a void, that there not be a void, that there be a well thought out plan that will bring about a democratic participatory government,” Clinton tells Fox News Sunday.

    January 31 – Day 7

    Obama dispatched Frank Wisner, a former US ambassador to Egypt, to tell Mubarak privately that he must prepare for an “orderly transition” of power.

    Publicly, the White House continues to call for democratic reforms but would not be drawn on Mubarak’s fate. Gibbs said: “We’re not picking between those on the street and those in the government.”


    February 1 – Day 8The state department orders the departure from Egypt of nonessential US government personnel and their families.

    Obama made a statement that he spoke with Mubarak after the Egyptian leader pledged not to seek re-election.

    He said he told Mubarak that “an orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful and it must begin now”.

    February 2 – Day 9

    Click here for our special Egypt coverage. 

    The White House condemned the violence in Egypt and said it was concerned about attacks on peaceful demonstrators, following the bloodiest day of protests.

    US officials were vague on whether Obama’s call for an immediate transition of power meant the Washington wanted Mubarak to step down before the September elections.

    February 3 – Day 10

    The US condemned attacks on journalists. Obama told the US National Prayer Breakfast he is praying “that a better day will dawn over Egypt”.

    Republican senator John McCain suggests the US should consider suspending aid to Egypt’s military.

    The US Senate passes a bipartisan resolution calling on Mubarak to transfer power to an inclusive caretaker government.

    Clinton calls on the Egyptian government and opposition “to begin immediately serious negotiations on a peaceful and orderly transition”.

    Americans rally in support of Egyptian democracy [AFP] 

    February 4 – Day 11

    The White House called for “concrete steps” toward an orderly transition but again stopped short of demanding Mubarak’s immediate resignation.

    “Having made that psychological break, that decision that he will not be running again, I think the most important thing for him to ask himself … is how do we make the transition effective, lasting and legitimate,” Obama said.

    “And my hope is … that he will end up making the right decision.”

    February 5 – Day 12

    Clinton said the US backs a transition process led by Suleiman, and that it must be given time to mature.

    “The principles are very clear, the operational details are very challenging,” she told a security conference in Munich, adding that radical elements may try to derail the process.

    Wisner said it is “critical” that Mubarak stay in power for the time being to manage the transition.

    “We need to get a national consensus around the preconditions for the next step forward. The president must stay in office to steer those changes,” Wisner said.

    The state department and White House quickly disavowed his comments, saying Wisner spoke in a private capacity.

    February 6 – Day 13

    Obama said Egypt “is not going to go back to what it was” and tells Fox News he is confident an orderly transition will produce a government that will remain a US partner.

    Clinton said Mubarak had responded seriously to US calls for constitutional change, chiefly through his pledge not to run for president again.

    She said she will not “prejudge” a bid by the Muslim Brotherhood to enter Egypt’s political process.

    February 7 – Day 14 

    Obama called for an ‘orderly transition of power’ [AFP]

    “Obviously, Egypt has to negotiate a path and they’re making progress,” Obama said.

    Crowley, acknowledging doubts about the credibility of the transition process, said: “Our advice would be: test the seriousness of the government and those who are participating to see if it can deliver.”

    Gibbs said: “The United States doesn’t pick leaders of other countries.”

    February 8 – Day 15

    Biden spoke to his Egyptian counterpart by telephone, setting out steps that the country must take in the face of unrelenting protests against Mubarak.

    Biden spoke to Suleiman, stressing US support “for an orderly transition in Egypt that is prompt, meaningful, peaceful, and legitimate”.

    Washington set out four steps the Egyptian government must take, including an end to harassment of protesters and journalists and the immediate repeal of an emergency law allowing detention without charge.

    Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, said Egypt’s military had behaved in “an exemplary fashion” by standing largely on the sidelines during the demonstrations.

    February 9 – Day 16

    In a sharp escalation of rhetoric, the US government said that Cairo had failed to reach even the “minimum threshold” for reforms in Egypt.

    Gibbs said “The [Egyptian] government has not taken the necessary steps that the people of Egypt need to see. That’s why more and more people come out to register their grievances.”

    “What you see happening on the streets of Cairo is not all that surprising when you see the lack of steps that their government has taken to meet their concerns.”

    Gibbs also criticised the steps taken by Suleiman who is tasked with coming up with a transition plan for Mubarak.

    “The process for his transition does not appear to be in line with the people of Egypt. We believe that more has to be done,” said Gibbs.

    Ahmed Abul Gheit, Egypt’s foreign minister, lashed out at the White House for imposiing it’s “will” on its Arab ally.

    February 10 – Day 17

    Noting that he’s watching “history unfold” Obama says that he’s still hoping for an “orderly and genuine” transiton.

    He did not, however, comment directly on reports that Mubarak might be stepping down. 

    Al Jazeera and agencies




    Egypt: An idea whose time has come


    Egyptians are finally seizing democracy for themselves, but the country’s immediate fate rests on a smooth transition.

    Marwa Maziad Last Modified: 11 Feb 2011 12:02 GMT
    Egypt’s contemporary equivalent of an American-style civil rights movement has finally occurred, and could prove to have an equally significant impact [Getty] 

    Egyptians have revolted. They have done so within an uprising akin to what one could only describe as Egypt’s very own civil rights movement. 

    The youth of Egypt called for a march in support of specific economic and political grievances concerning unemployment, raising minimum wages and ending being in a constant state of emergency law.

    In response, Egyptians of all walks of life, socio-economic classes, religious backgrounds, and ideological positions have joined the movement and peacefully marched on January 25 in support of specific demands. A display of what a true democracy would look like in Egypt.

    This was an “exercise in citizenship”. Based on this day, no matter how the current events will be written down in history, one thing is certain: The relationship between “government” and “citizen” in Egypt has changed forever.

    Origins of revolution

    On the 25th of January we heard the Egyptian demonstrators chant “Peaceful. Peaceful. Peaceful”, as they pre-emptively stopped any potential clashes with the riot police, showing utmost civility and self-restraint.

    Without any identifiable leadership, or specific organizers, the Egyptian people in the hundreds of thousands have proved to themselves and to whoever was watching that they can maintain order as they become more resolute about their demands.

    But as president Mubarak remained silent, with no official response till the end of that first day, perhaps in a typical “business as usual” attitude, the demonstrators had started by then to formulate a collective image of themselves as “constituents” with urgent demands to be met.

    Expectations became higher and the decision to return on Friday the 28th was made. Christians and Muslims, religious and secularists, rich and poor, peasants and urbanites were to converge at Tahrir Square in the heart of Cairo. By now, the sentiment among Egyptians turned to anger for having not been taken seriously enough by their president.

    In the few days to follow, since Friday’s “day of rage” till Tuesday’s “million man march”, the State cut off the internet and disrupted phone services.

    The Egyptian people were separated from the outside world in a gesture that could be be seen as collective punishment. Arguably, that was done in an attempt to isolate, intimidate and terrorize people as they were deliberately shown how prospects of chaos and instability would look like.

    The police were pulled out; the army was deployed in Egyptian cities. In what looked like a chess game, the State seemed to be “dealing” with the Egyptian people. Violence and clashes ensued due to the disappearance of the police from the Egyptian streets. This could be categorized as “state terror” if indeed reported allegations of the State’s involvement in the acts of violence proved to be true.

    Yet in response, and despite the dire circumstances, the demands of the Egyptian protesters have only evolved from specific grievances to a general call for an end to Mubarak’s regime. Perhaps, what the regime did not factor in was the proposition heard among many Egyptians: “If Mubarak is still in office and on his watch all this terror and looting occurred, then how could his presidency be synonymous with order and stability?”

    As Mubarak finally gave his first speech four days after the beginning of the protests, announcing a change in government, this was received by protesters as “too little, too late”. Since this moment onwards Mubarak has been playing catch-up with an intensified sentiment among the Egyptian people that he must step down.

    Yet Mubarak gave another speech showing no intention of resigning, albeit announcing that he will supervise constitutional reform and that he will not run for another term.

    This is when the events became even more “fluid” than what White House press secretary Robert Gibbs had described earlier in the week.  Following Mubarak’s second speech, where he used rhetoric such as “I was born in Egypt and shall die on its soil”, the Egyptian people started to show signs of sympathy toward Mubarak, resulting in what seemed like divisions on what course of action should be taken next.

    As the events, Mubarak’s concessions, their details and interpretations became more slippery by the minute, one indication remains clear: There is no going back to where Egypt was before the 25th.

    Finding a way out of crisis

    After all the visuals of protesters burning Mubarak’s images, of thugs looting and beating, and of the hundreds of Egyptians killed and injured thus far, the collective memory of the Egyptians cannot be erased.

    That said, there is still a way out of this crisis.

    Based on iterations in op-eds published in different sources this week and earlier by distinguished Egyptian national symbols in the sciences, business, and law, such as Ahmed Zewail, Naguib Sawirs, Ahmed Kamal Abul Magd, Farouq Elbaz, and Magdy Yacoub the following could be proposed:

    First, forming a council of men and women, including Egyptian youth, to write a new constitution based on citizens’ liberties and rights to insure an orderly transfer of power.

    Second, judiciary independence must be safeguarded.

    Third, parliamentary elections must be held to account for allegations of fraud in last November’s election. As for the presidency, elections should be held within one year under the supervision of the independent judiciary branch.

    Fourth, a transitional government must be formed. Current vice president Omar Soliman may play a transitional role until the next elections.

    In fact, these proposals seem to be agreed upon among most Egyptians. For this to happen the Egyptian people are to remain unified and in solidarity. They are not to internalize the paternalistic attitude that they are not “ready for democracy”, or that they are not keen on “freedom” as if this is a value exclusive to western cultures.

    Indeed the Egyptian people have started a spontaneous yet orderly series of protests that has remained peaceful and civilized, despite the constant attacks and provocations by state apparatuses.

    Yet for the vision to succeed, the military must retain its independence and allegiance to the protection of the nation and the people of Egypt and not to Mubarak’s crumbling regime.

    Additionally, political parties and civil society must assume their roles in Egypt’s democratic future by understanding the core of democracy, which is based on diversity of opinions, ideologies and even collision of agendas, yet – and this is crucial – maintains itself as a democratic system in which those numerous positions and inclinations exist and still function without the monopoly of a single voice over the rest of the voices representing different constituents within the society.

    Moreover, the demonstrations reflecting tremendous diversity within the Egyptian people show enough evidence that the people of Egypt are ready to peacefully take their country in their own hands. As one of the protestors put it, “We have proven that we can keep this country safe… we have proven that we can take this country forward.”

    In the end, this has been an “organic” revolution coming from within and will be marked down in history books worldwide, if for no other reasons but its inception. Egyptians today refuse to be locked and burdened by a history to which they have not contributed their own writing.

    Now they are making history anew. The world needs to follow this tide that has already begun, because Egyptians have made it clear that they are here to stay as free and dignified citizens.

    Senator John Kerry was right to say there is a need for the United States to align with the new Egypt, for democracy in Egypt is indeed an idea whose time has come. And as Victor Hugo said, nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.

    Marwa Maziad is a fellow at the Middle East Center and faculty at the Jackson School of International Studies at the University of Washington and also a contributing writer to Egyptian newspaper Almasry Alyoum.

    Al Jazeera


    Middle East

    Hosni Mubarak resigns as president


    Egyptian president stands down and hands over power to the Supreme Council for the Armed Forces.

    Pro-democracy protesters in Tahrir Square have vowed to take the protests to a ‘last and final stage’ [AFP] 

    Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president, has resigned from his post, handing over power to the armed forces.

    Omar Suleiman, the vice-president, announced in a televised address that the president was “waiving” his office, and had handed over authority to the Supreme Council of the armed forces.

    Suleiman’s short statement was received with a roar of approval and by celebratory chanting and flag-waving from a crowd of hundreds of thousands in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, as well by pro-democracy campaigners who attended protests across the country on Friday.

    The crowd in Tahrir chanted “We have brought down the regime”,  while many were seen crying, cheering and embracing one another.

    Mohamed ElBaradei, an opposition leader, hailed the moment as being the “greatest day of my life”, in comments to the Associated Press news agency.

    “The country has been liberated after decades of repression,” he said.

    “Tonight, after all of these weeks of frustration, of violence, of intimidation … today the people of Egypt undoubtedly [feel they] have been heard, not only by the president, but by people all around the world,” our correspondent at Tahrir Square reported, following the announcement.

    “The sense of euphoria is simply indescribable,” our correspondent at Mubarak’s Heliopolis presidential palace, where at least ten thousand pro-democracy activists had gathered, said.

    Pro-democracy activists in the Egyptian capital had marched on the presidential palace and state television buildings on Friday, the 18th consecutive day of protests.

    Anger at state television

    At the state television building earlier in the day, thousands had blocked people from entering or leaving, accusing the broadcaster of supporting the current government and of not truthfully reporting on the protests.

    “The military has stood aside and people are flooding through [a gap where barbed wire has been moved aside],” Al Jazeera’s correspondent at the state television building reported.

    He said that “a lot of anger [was] generated” after Mubarak’s speech last night, where he repeated his vow to complete his term as president.

    ‘Gaining momentum’

    Outside the palace in Heliopolis, where at least ten thousand protesters had gathered in Cairo, another Al Jazeera correspondent reported that there was a strong military presence, but that there was “no indication that the military want[ed] to crack down on protesters”.

    Click here for more of Al Jazeera’s special coverage 

    She said that army officers had engaged in dialogue with protesters, and that remarks had been largely “friendly”.

    Tanks and military personnel had been deployed to bolster barricades around the palace.

    Our correspondent said the crowd in Heliopolis was “gaining momentum by the moment”, and that the crowd had gone into a frenzy when two helicopters were seen in the air around the palace grounds.

    “By all accounts this is a highly civilised gathering. people are separated from the palace by merely a barbed wire … but nobody has even attempted to cross that wire,” she said.

    As crowds grew outside the palace, Mubarak left Cairo on Friday for the Red Sea resort of Sharm al-Shaikh, according to sources who spoke to Al Jazeera.

    In Tahrir Square, hundreds of thousands of protesters gathered, chanting slogans against Mubarak and calling for the military to join them in their demands.

    Our correspondent at the square said the “masses” of pro-democracy campaigners there appeared to have “clear resolution” and “bigger resolve” to achieve their goals than ever before.

    However, he also said that protesters were “confused by mixed messages” coming from the army, which has at times told them that their demands will be met, yet in communiques and other statements supported Mubarak’s staying in power until at least September.

    Army statement

    In a statement read out on state television at midday on Friday, the military announced that it would lift a 30-year-old emergency law but only “as soon as the current circumstances end”.

    Thousands are laying siege to state television’s office

    The military said it would also guarantee changes to the constitution as well as a free and fair election, and it called for normal business activity to resume.

    Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Tahrir Square said people there were hugely disappointed with that army statement, and had vowed to take the protests to “a last and final stage”.

    “They’re frustrated, they’re angry, and they say protests need to go beyond Liberation [Tahrir] Square, to the doorstep of political institutions,” she said.

    Protest organisers have called for 20 million people to come out on “Farewell Friday” in a final attempt to force Mubarak to step down.  

    Alexandria protests

    Hossam El Hamalawy, a pro-democracy organiser and member of the Socialist Studies Centre, said protesters were heading towards the presidential palace from multiple directions, calling on the army to side with them and remove Mubarak.

    “People are extremely angry after yesterday’s speech,” he told Al Jazeera. “Anything can happen at the moment. There is self-restraint all over but at the same time I honestly can’t tell you what the next step will be … At this time, we don’t trust them [the army commanders] at all.”

    An Al Jazeera reporter overlooking Tahrir said the side streets leading into the square were filling up with crowds.

    “It’s an incredible scene. From what I can judge, there are more people here today than yesterday night,” she said.

    Hundreds of thousands of protesters havehered
    in the port city of Alexandria [AFP] 




    “The military has not gone into the square except some top commanders, one asking people to go home … I don’t see any kind of tensions between the people and the army but all of this might change very soon if the army is seen as not being on the side of the people.”

    Hundreds of thousands were participating in Friday prayers outside a mosque in downtown Alexandria, Egypt’s second biggest city.

    Thousands of pro-democracy campaigners also gathered outside a presidential palace in Alexandria.

    Egyptian television reported that large angry crowds were heading from Giza, adjacent to Cairo, towards Tahrir Square and some would march on the presidential palace.

    Protests are also being held in the cities of Mansoura, Mahala, Tanta, Ismailia, and Suez, with thousands in attendance.

    Violence was reported in the north Sinai town of el-Arish, where protesters attempted to storm a police station. At least one person was killed, and 20 wounded in that attack, our correspondent said.

    Dismay at earlier statement

    In a televised address to the nation on Thursday, Mubarak said he was handing “the functions of the president” to Vice-President Omar Suleiman. But the move means he retains his title of president.

    Halfway through his much-awaited speech late at night, anticipation turned into anger among protesters camped in Tahrir Square who began taking off their shoes and waving them in the air.

    Immediately after Mubarak’s speech, Suleiman called on the protesters to “go home” and asked Egyptians to “unite and look to the future.”

    Union workers have joined the protests over the past few days, effectively crippling transportation and several industries, and dealing a sharper blow to Mubarak’s embattled regime.




    « Back to Home

    3 Feb 10 2011 by Hala Kamal
    [Image from Jadaliyya] [Image from Jadaliyya]

    [Circulating in the Egyptian Public Space]

    New word added to Oxford Dictionary: 

    Mubarak (v.): To stick something, or to glue something. 

    Triumph as Mubarak quits


    Millions celebrate as Egyptian president cedes power to the army, ushering in a new era of optimism in the Arab world.

    Last Modified: 11 Feb 2011 22:59 GMT
    Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president, has resigned from his post, handing over power to the armed forces and ending a 30-year grip on the largest Arab nation.Omar Suleiman, the vice-president, announced in a televised address on Friday that the president was “waiving” his office, and had handed over authority to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces.Suleiman’s short statement was received with a roar of approval and by celebratory chanting and flag-waving from a crowd of hundreds of thousands in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, as well as by other pro-democracy campaigners who attending protests across the country.

    Tahrir Square responds to Mubarak’s resignation

    The top figure in Egypt’s new regime is now Field Marshal Mohammed Hussein Tantawi, the country’s defence minister.

    After the announcement, he drove past Mubarak’s former palace, where crowds cheered him. He stopped briefly to thank and hail the pro-democracy campaigners before driving in.

    In its third statement to the nation since Thursday, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces said it was examining the situation “in order to materialise the aspirations of our great nation”.

    The statement said that “resolutions and statements regarding the … actions to be followed” in order to achieve the demands of the people will be handed down later.

    In the televised address, the spokesman also extended “greetings and appreciation” to Mubarak for his service to the country, and saluted the “marytrs and those who have fallen” during the protests.

    ‘Dream come true’

    The crowd in Tahrir responded to Suleiman’s statement by chanting “we have brought down the regime”, while many were seen crying, cheering and embracing one another.

    Mohamed ElBaradei, a leading opposition leader, hailed the moment as being “a dream come true” while speaking to Al Jazeera.

    “I can’t tell you how every Egyptian feels today,” he said. “We have been able to restore our humanity … to be free and independent”.

    ElBaradei reiterated that Egypt now needs to return to stability, and proposed that a transition government be put in place for the next year.

    Click here for more of Al Jazeera’s special coverage 

    The government, he said, would include figures from the army, from the opposition and from other circles.

    “We need to go on … our priority is to make sure the country is restored as a socially cohesive, economically vibrant and … democratic country,” he said.

    Ayman Nour, another opposition figure and a former president, told Al Jazeera that he would consider running for the presidency if there was consensus on his candidacy.

    He called Friday “the greatest day in Egyptian history”.

    “This nation has been born again. These people have been born again, and this is a new Egypt.”

    Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab league, said on Friday that he would resign from his post, one that he has headed for about ten years, “within weeks”. Some analysts say he may well run for the Egyptian presidency when elections are held.

    Following Mubarak’s announcement, our correspondent in Tahrir Square, said: “Tonight, after all of these weeks of frustration, of violence, of intimidation … today the people of Egypt undoubtedly [feel they] have been heard, not only by the president, but by people all around the world.”

    ‘Explosion of emotion’

    Al Jazeera’s correspondents across the country reported scenes of jubilation and celebration on the streets of major cities.

    Our online producer in Tahrir Square describes scenes of celebration

    “The sense of euphoria is simply indescribable,” our correspondent at Mubarak’s Heliopolis presidential palace, where at least ten thousand pro-democracy activists had gathered, said.

    “I have waited, I have worked all my adult life to see the power of the people come to the fore and show itself. I am speechless,” Dina Magdi, a pro-democracy campaigner in Tahrir Square told Al Jazeera.

    “The moment is not only about Mubarak stepping down, it is also about people’s power to bring about the change that no-one … thought possible.”

    In Alexandria, Egypt’s second city, our correspondent described an “explosion of emotion”. He said that hundreds of thousands were celebrating in the streets.

    Responding to the announcement, Barack Obama, the US president, said his country would “continue to be a friend and partner to Egypt”, and would provide whatever assistance was “necessary and asked for”.

    He said voice of the Egyptian people had been heard, and that Mubarak had “responded to the … people’s hunger for change”.

    He said that moving forward, the Egyptian military must ensure the rights of citizens are protected, that the state of emergency is lifted, the constitution revised and a clear path created to free and fair elections. He also praised the army’s conduct so far.

    Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, told Al Jazeera that the 27-nation bloc “respect[ed] the decision that President Mubarak has taken”.

    She said the EU wanted to “pay tribute to the dignity of” Egyptians’ behaviour at this time, and that Europe was ready to offer its assistance in this transition period in the fields of elections, building civil society and other areas.

    The Swiss foreign ministry, meanwhile, has confirmed to Al Jazeera that they have frozen assets linked to Mubarak.

    ‘Farewell Friday’

    Suleiman’s announcement came after hundreds of thousands of Egyptians took the streets for the 18th consecutive day, marching on presidential palaces, state television buildings and other government installations. 

    Earlier on Friday, hordes of pro-democracy activists took to the streets in several cities, including Alexandria [AFP] 

    Pro-democracy activists had dubbed the day ‘Farewell Friday’, and had called for “millions” to turn out and demand that Mubarak resign.

    Hundreds of thousands were seen to have gathered at Cairo’s Tahrir Square, which has been the focal point of protests, chanting slogans against the government and expressing their dissatisfaction with Mubarak’s statement on Thursday night, when he had reiterated his vow to complete his term.

    Hundreds of thousands were also seen demonstrating in Alexandria, where several thousand also marched to a presidential palace there.

    Protests were also reported from the cities of Mansoura, Mahalla, Suez, Tanta and Ismailia with thousands in attendance.

    Violence was reported in the north Sinai town of el-Arish, where protesters attempted to storm a police station.

    At least one person was killed, and 20 wounded in that attack, our correspondent said.

    Earlier in the day, protesters had laid siege to the state television’s offices in Cairo, accusing the broadcaster of being a Mubarak mouthpiece. The military stood aside and allowed them to surround the building, which had been heavily defended in previous days.

    At least ten thousand also gathered outside Mubarak’s Heliopolis presidential palace, where our correspondent reported that there was a strong military presence throughout the day, but no indication that the army intended to crack down on protesters.

    As crowds grew outside the palace, Mubarak left Cairo on Friday for the Red Sea resort of Sharm al-Shaikh, according to sources who spoke to Al Jazeera.

    Army statement

    Earlier on Friday, before Mubarak’s resignation, in a statement read out on state television at midday on Friday, the military had announced that it would lift a 30-year-old emergency law but only “as soon as the current circumstances end”.

    The military said it would also guarantee changes to the constitution as well as a free and fair election, and it called for normal business activity to resume.

    Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Tahrir Square said people there were hugely disappointed with that army statement, and had vowed to take the protests to “a last and final stage”.

    Al Jazeera and agencies



    Post-Mubarak era dawns on Egypt


    People power has spoken in the biggest Arab nation just four weeks after Tunisians toppled their own ageing ruler.

    Last Modified: 12 Feb 2011 05:56 GMT
    Egyptians have woken to a new dawn after 30 years of rule under Hosni Mubarak.As the Muslim call to prayer reverberated across Cairo on Saturday, the sound of horns honking in jubilation could still be heard after a night when millions celebrated the fall of the president, who has handed over power to the military.After 18 days of rallies at Cairo’s Tahrir Square, resisting police assaults and a last-ditch raid by Mubarak supporters, people packed not just the epicentre but, it seemed, every street and neighbourhood of the capital. Similar was the scene in other cities and towns across the country.Fireworks lit the night sky, cars honked under swathes of red, white and black Egyptian flags and people hoisted children above their heads. Some took souvenir pictures with smiling soldiers atop their tanks on city streets.Everyone cried, laughed and embraced in the hope of a new era.Al Jazeera’s Jacky Rowland, reporting from Cairo, said that in the coming days people will have some concerns.“The obvious thing that is going to be concerning many people is to have some kind of a clear roadmap for the progress towards democratic elections,” she said. “After all this was a revolution not only to overthrow President Mubarak, but also to remove the whole system and install it with one where people would have freedom of choice with [regards to who] who runs the country.”It all began when Omar Suleiman, the vice-president, said on Friday in a televised address that the president was “waiving” his office, and had handed over authority to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces.Suleiman’s 50-word statement was received with a roar of approval and by celebratory chanting and flag-waving from a crowd of hundreds of thousands in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, as well as by other pro-democracy campaigners who were attending protests across the country.

    Tahrir Square responds to Mubarak’s resignation

    The top figure in Egypt is now Field Marshal Mohammed Hussein Tantawi, the country’s defence minister and head of the supreme council.

    In its third statement to the nation since Thursday, the council said in a televised address that it was examining the situation “in order to materialise the aspirations of our great nation”.

    The council spokesman said that “resolutions and statements regarding the … actions to be followed” in order to achieve the demands of the people will be handed down later.

    He also extended “greetings and appreciation” to Mubarak for his service to the country, and saluted the “martyrs and those who have fallen” during the protests.

    Nezar al Sayyad, a Middle East specialist, told Al Jazeera that Egypt  “is in a very critical stage in terms of what is going to happen next.”

    “I think it’s extremely important to remember here that although Omar Suleiman made the announcement that Mubarak made the decision to step down, we don’t really know if Mubarak decided to step down or [if] he was forcibly removed by the armed forces and by the supreme council,” Al Sayyad said.

    He said the next steps taken by Tantawi and other members of the supreme council,  will “be extremely important in pushing the country forward”.

    ‘Dream come true’

    The crowd in Tahrir responded to Suleiman’s statement by chanting “we have brought down the regime”.

    Mohamed ElBaradei, a prominent opposition leader, hailed the moment as being “a dream come true”.

    “I can’t tell you how every Egyptian feels today,” he said. “We have been able to restore our humanity … to be free and independent”.

    ElBaradei reiterated that Egypt now needs to return to stability and proposed that a transition government be put in place for the next year.

    Click here for more of Al Jazeera’s special coverage 

    The government, he said, would include figures from the army, from the opposition and from other circles.

    “We need to go on … our priority is to make sure the country is restored as a socially cohesive, economically vibrant and … democratic country,” he said.

    Ayman Nour, another opposition figure and a former presidential candidate, told Al Jazeera that he would consider running for the presidency again if there was consensus on his candidacy.

    He said Februray 11, 2011 is “the greatest day in Egyptian history”.

    “This nation has been born again. These people have been born again, and this is a new Egypt.”

    Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League, said that he would resign from his post, one that he has headed for about 10 years, “within weeks”. Some analysts say he may well run for the Egyptian presidency when elections are held.

    Following Mubarak’s announcement, our correspondent in Tahrir Square, said: “Tonight, after all of these weeks of frustration, of violence, of intimidation … today the people of Egypt undoubtedly [feel they] have been heard, not only by the president, but by people all around the world.”

    ‘Explosion of emotion’

    Our correspondents across the country reported scenes of jubilation and celebration on the streets of major cities.

    Our online producer in Tahrir Square describes scenes of celebration

    “The sense of euphoria is simply indescribable,” said our correspondent at Mubarak’s Heliopolis presidential palace, where at least 10,000 pro-democracy activists had gathered.

    “I have waited, I have worked all my adult life to see the power of the people come to the fore and show itself. I am speechless,” Dina Magdi, a pro-democracy campaigner in Tahrir Square said.

    “The moment is not only about Mubarak stepping down, it is also about people’s power to bring about the change that no-one … thought possible.”

    In Alexandria, Egypt’s second largest city, our correspondent described an “explosion of emotion”. He said that hundreds of thousands were celebrating in the streets.

    ‘Farewell Friday’

    Suleiman’s announcement came after hundreds of thousands of Egyptians took the streets for the 18th consecutive day, marching on presidential palaces, state television buildings and other government installations. 

    Thousands of pro-democracy activists took to the streets on Friday in several cities, including Alexandria [AFP] 

    They had dubbed the day ‘Farewell Friday’, and had called for “millions” to turn out and demand that Mubarak resign.

    Hundreds of thousands gathered at Tahrir Square, chanting slogans against the government.

    Similar numbers were also reported from Alexandria, where some protesters marched to a presidential palace there.

    Protests were also reported from the cities of Mansoura, Mahalla, Suez, Tanta and Ismailia with thousands in attendance.

    Violence was reported in the north Sinai town of el-Arish, where protesters attempted to storm a police station.

    At least one person was killed, and 20 wounded in that attack, our correspondent said.

    Al Jazeera and agencies


    Algeria protesters break cordon


    Pro-democracy demonstrators, inspired by the Egyptian revolution, ignore official ban and march in the capital Algiers.

    Last Modified: 12 Feb 2011 05:25 GMT
    Many demonstrators in Algeria have been inspired by the events unfolding in Egypt and Tunisia [AFP] 

    Algerian security forces and pro-democracy protesters are clashing, as demonstrations got underway in the capital Algiers on Saturday.

    At least 2,000 protestors were able to overcome a security cordon enforced around the capital’s May First Square, joining other demonstrators calling for reform.

    Earlier, thousands of police in riot gear were in position to stop the demonstrations that could mimic the uprising which forced out Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

    Security forces have closed all entrances to the capital and already arrested hundreds of protesters, sources told Al Jazeera.

    At the scene of the protests, blogger and activist, Elias Filali, said human right’s activists and syndicate members were among those arrested.

    “I’m right in the middle of the march,” he told Al Jazeera. “People are being arrested and are heavily guarded by the police.”

    Officials banned Saturday’s opposition march, but protesters were determined to see it through.

    Peaceful protests

    Filali said the demonstrators were determined to remain peaceful, but he added that the police “want the crowd to go violent and then get them portrayed as a violent crowd”.

    Protesters are demanding greater democratic freedoms, a change of government, and more jobs.

    Earlier, police also charged at demonstrators and arrested 10 people outside the Algiers offices of the opposition Rally for Culture and Democracy (RCD), as they celebrated Mubarak’s downfall, Said Sadi, RCD leader, told AFP news agency.

    “It wasn’t even an organised demonstration. It was spontaneous. It was an explosion of joy,” he said.

    Mubarak’s resignation on Friday, and last month’s overthrow of Tunisian leader, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, have electrified the Arab world.

    Many are left wondering which country could be next in a region where a flammable mix of authoritarian rule and popular anger are the norm.

    “The timing is absolutely perfect. [Mubarak’s departure] couldn’t have come at a better time,” Filali told Al Jazeera ahead of the protests.

    “This is a police state, just like the Egyptian regime [was],” Filali said, adding that Algeria’s government was “corrupt to the bone, based on electoral fraud, and repression”.

    “There is a lot of discontent among young people … the country is badly managed by a corrupt regime that does not want to listen,” he added.

    Police on alert

    Said Sadi, the RCD leader, had said earlier that he expected around 10,000 more police officers to reinforce the 20,000 that blocked the last demonstration on January 22, when five people were killed and more than 800 hurt.

    Police presence is routine in Algeria to counter the threat of attacks by al Qaeda insurgents. But Filali called the heavy police presence in the capital on Saturday “unbelievable”.

    At May First Square, the starting point for the planned march, there were around 40 police vans, jeeps and buses lined up, Filali said.

    At several road junctions, the police had parked small military-style armoured vehicles which are rarely seen in the city. Police standing outside a fuel station, about 2 km from the square, were wearing anti-riot body armour.

    The latest rally is being organised by the National Co-ordination for Change and Democracy (CNCD), a three-week-old umbrella group of opposition parties, civil society movements and unofficial unions inspired by the mass protests in Tunisia and Egypt.

    Demonstrators have been protesting over the last few months against unemployment, high food costs, poor housing and corruption – similar issues that fuelled uprisings in other north African nations.

    Earlier this month, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, Algeria’s president, said he would lift emergency powers, address unemployment and allow democratic marches to take place in the country, in a bid to stave off unrest.

    “The regime is frightened,” Filali said. “And the presence of 30,000 police officers in the capital gives you an idea of how frightened the regime [is] of its people.”

    Wider implications

    Widespread unrest in Algeria could have implications for the world economy because it is a major oil and gas exporter, but many analysts say an Egypt-style revolt is unlikely as the government can use its energy wealth to placate most grievances.

    Meanwhile, in a statement, rights group Amnesty International said “Algerians must be allowed to express themselves freely and hold peaceful protests in Algiers and elsewhere”.

    “We urge the Algerian authorities not to respond to these demands by using excessive force.”

    The government said it refused permission for the rally for public order reasons, not because it is trying to stifle dissent. It said it is working hard to create jobs, build new homes and improve public services.

    Other Arab countries have also felt the ripples from the revolts in Egypt and Tunisia.

    Jordan’s King Abdullah replaced his prime minister after protests.

    In Yemen, President Ali Abdullah Saleh promised opponents he would not seek a new term.

    The Bahraini government has also made several concessions in recent weeks, including promising higher social spending. Activists there have called for protests on February 14, the tenth anniversary of Bahrain’s constitution.

    Al Jazeera and agencies


    The resurrection of pan-Arabism


    The Egyptian revolution has resurrected a new type of pan-Arabism, based on social justice not empty slogans.

    Lamis Andoni Last Modified: 11 Feb 2011 18:51 GMT
    The Egyptian revolution has resurrected pan-Arabism but this is not the pan-Arabism of previous generations [GALLO/GETTY] 

    The Egyptian revolution, itself influenced by the Tunisian uprising, has resurrected a new sense of pan-Arabism based on the struggle for social justice and freedom. The overwhelming support for the Egyptian revolutionaries across the Arab world reflects a sense of unity in the rejection of tyrannical, or at least authoritarian, leaders, corruption and the rule of a small financial and political elite.

    Arab protests in solidarity with the Egyptian people also suggest that there is a strong yearning for the revival of Egypt as a pan-Arab unifier and leader. Photographs of Gamal Abdel Nasser, the former Egyptian president, have been raised in Cairo and across Arab capitals by people who were not even alive when Nasser died in 1970. The scenes are reminiscent of those that swept Arab streets in the 1950s and 1960s.

    But this is not an exact replica of the pan-Arab nationalism of those days. Then, pan-Arabism was a direct response to Western domination and the 1948 establishment of the state of Israel. Today, it is a reaction to the absence of democratic freedoms and the inequitable distribution of wealth across the Arab world.

    We are now witnessing the emergence of a movement for democracy that transcends narrow nationalism or even pan-Arab nationalism and which embraces universal human values that echo from north to south and east to west.

    This is not to say that there is no anti-imperialist element within the current movement. But the protests in Egypt and elsewhere promote a deeper understanding of human emancipation, which forms the real basis for freedom from both repression and foreign domination.

    Unlike the pan-Arabism of the past, the new movement represents an intrinsic belief that it is freedom from fear and human dignity that enables people to build better societies and to create a future of hope and prosperity. The old “wisdom” of past revolutionaries that liberation from foreign domination precedes the struggle for democracy has fallen.

    The revolutionaries of Egypt, and before them Tunisia, have exposed through deeds – not merely words – the leaders who are tyrants towards their own people, while humiliatingly subservient to foreign powers. They have shown the impotence of empty slogans that manipulate animosity towards Israel to justify a fake Arab unity, which in turn serves only to mask sustained oppression and the betrayal of Arab societies and the aspirations of the Palestinian people.

    The Palestinian pretext
    The era of using the Palestinian cause as a pretext for maintaining martial laws and silencing dissent is over. The Palestinians have been betrayed, not helped, by leaders who practice repression against their own people. It is no longer sufficient for regimes in Syria and Iran to claim support for Palestinian resistance in order to stifle freedom of expression and to shamelessly tread on human rights in their own countries.
    Equally, it is no longer acceptable for the Palestinian Fatah and Hamas to cite their record in resisting Israel when justifying their suppression of each other and the rest of the Palestinian people. Young Palestinians are responding to the message of the movement and embracing the idea that combatting internal injustice – whether practised by Fatah or Hamas – is a prerequisite for the struggle to end Israeli occupation and not something to be endured for the sake of that struggle.
    Events in Egypt and Tunisia have revealed that Arab unity against internal repression is stronger than that against a foreign threat – neither the American occupation of Iraq nor the Israeli occupation galvanised the Arab people in the way that a single act by a young Tunisian who chose to set himself alight rather than live in humiliation and poverty has.
    This does not mean that Arabs do not care about the occupied people of Iraq or Palestine – tens, sometimes hundreds, of thousands have taken to the streets across Arab countries at various times to show solidarity with Iraqis and Palestinians – but it does reflect the realisation that the absence of democratic freedoms has contributed to the continued occupation of those countries.
    The Arab failure to defend Iraq or liberate Palestine has come to symbolise an Arab impotence that has been perpetuated by the state of fear and paralysis in which the ordinary Arab citizen, marginalised by social injustice and crushed by security apparatus oppression, has existed.
    When they were allowed to rally in support of Iraqis or Palestinians it was mainly so that their anger might be deflected from their own governments and towards a foreign threat. For so long, they put their own socio-economic grievances aside to voice their support for the occupied, only to wake up the next day shackled by the same chains of repression.
    All the while, both pro-Western and anti-Western governments continued with business as usual – the first camp relying on US support to consolidate their authoritarian rule and the second on anti-Israel slogans to give legitimacy to their repression of their people.
    But now people across the region – not only in Egypt and Tunisia – have lost faith in their governments. For make no mistake, when protesters have gathered in Amman or Damascus to express their solidarity with the Egyptian revolutionaries in Tahrir Square, they are actually objecting to their own rulers.
    In Ramallah, the protesters repeated a slogan calling for the end of internal Palestinian divisions (which, in Arabic, rhymes with the Egyptian call for the end to the regime), as well as demanding an end to negotiations with Israel – sending a clear message that there will be no room left for the Palestinian Authority if it continues to rely on such negotiations.
    In the 1950s and 1960s, millions of Arabs poured onto the streets determined to continue the liberation of the Arab world from the remnants of colonial domination and the creeping American hegemony. In 2011, millions have poured onto the streets determined not only to ensure their freedom but also to ensure that the mistakes of previous generations are not repeated. Slogans against a foreign enemy – no matter how legitimate – ring hollow if the struggle for democratic freedoms is set aside.
    The protesters in Cairo and beyond may raise photographs of Gamal Abdel Nasser, because they see him as a symbol of Arab dignity. But, unlike Nasser, the demonstrators are invoking a sense of pan-Arab nationalism that understands that national liberation cannot go hand-in-hand with the suppression of political dissent. For this is a genuine Arab unity galvanised by the common yearning for democratic freedoms.




    Lamis Andoni is an analyst and commentator on Middle Eastern and Palestinian affairs.
    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.





    Ik wil hier ook graag wijzen op een post van blogster Maria Trepp (Univers Leiden) over de, helaas afgelopen jaar overleden, Egyptische hoogleraar Nasr Abu Zayd. Zelf besteedde ik op dit blog ook aandacht aan zijn werk, zie hier. Maar Maria Trepp heeft de afgelopen jaren veel aandacht aan hem besteed. Van de site van Maria Trepp:

    De Egyptenaar, liberale moslim en balling Nasr Abu Zayd
      Ik ben verdrietig dat Nasr Abu Zayd
    (1943-2010) de Egyptische revolutie niet meer heeft meegemaakt.Hij is vorig jaar overleden.Over de ontwikkelingen in Egypte zou hij blij en trots zijn- en sceptisch over de toekomst en de democratisering.Hij was sinds 1995 balling in Nederland
    nadat hij in Egypte tot geloofsafvallige werd bestempeld. Hij beschouwde de Koran als zowel religieus alsook mythisch en literair werk.Wikipedia: “Abu Zayd gold als groot kenner
    van de islamitische stromingenin de islamitische wetenschappen en stelde zich tot doel een te ontwikkelen die moslims in staat stelt hun eigen tradities te verbinden met de moderne wereld van
    vrijheid, gelijkheid, mensenrechten en democratie. Op basis van kritisch onderzoek van de Koran en de hadiethliteratuur kwam Abu Zayd onder meer tot de conclusie dat de juridische positie van de vrouw gelijk dient te zijn aan die van de man.”Ik heb over hem, bevriende wetenschapper, oud-Cleveringahoogleraar en hoogleraar aan de UvH, vele blogs geschreven.Hier een overzicht.
    HIER verder lezen
    Van de site van de NOS

    Muziek uit de Egyptische revolutie

    Het woord kwam de afgelopen weken iedere keer weer terug om de stemming op het Tahrirplein te beschrijven: festivalsfeer. Natuurlijk was er op sommige dagen veel geweld, maar op andere dagen was er juist verbroedering. Mensen aten, dronken en dansten met elkaar. En de tentjes op het plein hadden zo op de campings van Pinkpop of Lowlands kunnen staan.

    Bij een festival hoort muziek. En die muziek kwam er dus ook. Op het plein speelden orkestjes. De slogans tegen Mubarak werden soms complete liederen. Bijvoorbeeld vorige week vrijdag, de dag die de demonstranten hadden omgedoopt tot ‘dag van vertrek’.

    “Laat Mubarak onze stem horen. We vragen allemaal hetzelfde, vertrek, vertrek, vertrek! Ga, ga, Hosni Mubarak! Het volk wil het einde van het regime. Hij moet vertrekken, wij vertrekken niet. Wij vragen allemaal met één stem: vertrek!”


    De demonstraties op het Tahrirplein legden niet het hele land plat, in de Egyptische studio’s werd gewoon doorgewerkt. Ook daar kwamen muziek en clips vandaan. Eén dag voor het vertrek van Mubarak werd deze video geplaatst.

    “We hieven onze hoofden en maakten ons geen zorgen meer over honger. Het belangrijkste is nu ons recht. En geschiedenis schrijven met ons bloed. Als jij één van ons bent, zeg ons dan niet dat we weg moeten gaan en onze droom moeten verlaten. Gebruik niet het woord ‘ik’. In elke straat van mijn land wordt geschreeuwd om vrijheid.”


    Ook in het buitenland werden muzikanten geïnspireerd door de gebeurtenissen in Egypte. Zoals een gro