There is no better example than Iran. The Iranian government is not a victim of this, they deserve any revealing coverage that comes their way. It’s a country that thrives on its own people’s blood and by executing people at such a fast rate that it’s difficult to be shocked or even shaken by such news anymore. People hear about it so often that it’s numbing. They hear about it mostly because it’s accessible. U.S and Israeli media report it every day as a strategy to empower itself. It’s a brutal psychological war that uses real lives and real personal stories, real people, to give itself more power. The more it happens, the more they celebrate it. It shows from their energetic coverage of such news. For their convenience, such news helps to divert your attention away from their own crimes and their own dirty games that play a big role in today’s political and human rights crisis across our countries. Protesters shot and killed in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain? Move along people, nothing to see here.

Many of my activist friends in Iran share this same feeling. These governments (also oppressive) taking advantage of these activists who risk their own freedoms to expose these stories and who, as a consequence, have to witness these stories being used against them. We all know that the U.S and Israel, and their allies, have no interest in human rights and in us as human beings. They have an interest in their political and economic status, and to maintain Israel’s role as a superpower in the region, one that also thrives on blood and murder. But the U.S regards that as “necessary crimes” for Israel’s “survival,” though Iran and Syria can claim the same thing. They kill for the survival of their current government and current structure and to protect the current people in power. You can justify anything if you try to and sometimes it would even make sense, it just would never be right. Especially if it means you end up putting even more people in danger than they already were, which is what both the U.S and Israel are doing with its narrow coverage.

Some people ask why others are so focused on Israel when there are crimes happening in their own countries or other neighboring ones. The answer is that coverage of these issues gets in the wrong hands all too often. These are powerful hands who call the shots (literally.) In one instance you still want the entire world to know what crimes your government is committing and in another you don’t want to empower occupying and imperialist forces to use that as justice for their interference. A lot of people feel that the latter is an important struggle because the human rights movements feels incomplete without it.

Unfortunately for us, this will happen regardless of our fight against it. That doesn’t mean we can sit back and watch it happen, but we should expose it and discourage it and even refrain from speaking with certain journalists at certain papers and state our reasons why so that they understand that we’re not going to help their agendas that are in direct competition with ours. And our agenda is the simplest demand that is the hardest to fight for: to be free. Free from tyrannical regimes and free from occupying foreign forces.

We need painters, musicians, writers; we need people to have dreams and faith in the possibility of it coming true…

My friend Mohamed Amer had a dream , his dream was no to tell the story of his country, but to tell the world that his country is still have good sons, who can rise from the middle of war and death, to tell the world good stories, he always tried to help others who he believed got the talent to stand by their side and help of building new generation, so this young Iraqi youth decide to use his ability of writing to make one step to achieve his dream and he wrote a book, the book title is God Is In The Rain , is a story about an old man who tells stories to children in a fantasy and realistic way to grab their attention , a story a bout an amazing journey into the worlds philosophy about life and religion, romance and war.

I advice you to read it, and to help this 26 years old Iraqi engineer who lived most of his life in Iraq, waiting that someone, finally, hear all the talented youth calling, so how you can help him ??

Well you can buy his book, which is available on Amazon.com and Lulu.com ,,, and you can spread the word, share the link for this article and help other who like to support Iraqi youth to find a chance to do so.

Believe me in the end you will read an amazing story and feel good for helping g to induce change for Iraq future

This is link to the writer book and blog page

http://www.iraqistreets.com/talented-youth-blog-mohamed-amer-book

This is link to the book on Amazon

http://www.amazon.com/God-Rain-ebook/dp/B006R90QHU/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1325344110&sr=8-5

This is link to the book in Lulu

http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/mohamedamer

As its obvious there are strong ties between Iran and Iraq’s ruling, Shiites, especially with the Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki which remained in power by a secret deal between Iran and United States. However, Al-Maliki is highly connected with the leaders in Iran regarding whatever he could do on Syrian case, as we have seen a delegation from Iraqi government arrived in Damascus to show Iraq’s support to Al-Asad’s Syria, even though Iraqi government announced they are trying to mediate that’s in one hand. On the other hand, Iraqi Sunnis have a strong tie with Turkey; Tariq Al-Hashimi, in particular, has a special relation with the leaders of Turkey’s AKP government, only this year he met with Turkish authorities many times. The recent tension between Iran and Turkey on Syria and NATO missile defense has certainly affected on the Iraqi leaders, especially Iran wants to move the center of attention from Syria to other friendly countries like Iraq.

The declaration of the Sunni cities of Salahadeen, Anbar, and later Dyala to become regions by the Saudi-Turkish support is another reason, as Shiites accuse such a step as a sectarian one that tries to divide the country. That led Muqtada Al-Sadr’s Mahdi militia to intervene in Dyala that around 20% of the province’s population is Shiites. Moreover, according to some sources, another possible scenario is linking part of the Sunni region withJordan, specifically both cities of Anbar and Dyala. Whereas, Jordan’s King Abdullah arrived in London recently to discuss this possible scenario with the British officials, including British prime minister. According to the source,Britainis the spearhead of the scenario of linking part of the Iraq’s Sunni region with Jordan. While Mosul province which is dominated by the Iraqi parliament speaker’s Sunni leader, Asel Nujifi will become a federal region under Turkish supervision. Furthermore, Arabs will go out from Kirkuk, only Kurds and Turkmen will remain there, and both Kurdistan and Turkey will share the oil revenues with giving Mosul province some of the revenue, as well.

Nouri Al-Maliki’s autocratic approaches also part of the tension. Paul Bremer defined Al-Maliki as the Saddam of Shiites. In the recent years, after his partial success in limiting violence Al-Maliki strengthened its hand over the government and security forces. Only one day-afterUnited States’ official withdrawal fromIraq, Al-Maliki accused Tariq Al-Hashimi for being behind terrorist attacks in Iraq. In addition, today Nouri Al-Maliki officially dismissed Salih Mutlaq from his position as deputy prime minister because Mutlaq described Al-Maliki as a new dictator while described Saddam as a good dictator, in an interview with CNN. A close source from Tariq Al-Hashimi told me, Al-Hashimi also has strong evidence that proves Al-Maliki’s engagement in terrorist attacks, but he will keep it for now. Most of the politicians in Iraq, including Shiites believe that Al-Maliki is trying to erase his rivals, including his Shiite allies one day. Nevertheless, Al-Maliki denies this; he says the diverseIraqwith a wide range of parties in parliament won’t become dictatorship again. The days will, at the end, show how Al-Maliki’s desire for power will end the state called Iraq.

Kurds who try to show themselves as neutrals aren’t, in reality. Historically, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani’s Patriotic Union of Kurdistan has strong ties withIran, which that clearly reflects in the many visits of Talabani to Iran. After the accusation of Al-Hashimi, he tried to meet with Talabani, but he refused. Paradoxically, the other Kurdish leader, Masoud Barzani the president of Kurdistan region met with Al-Hashimi, and refused to surrender him to the Iraqi authorities in Baghdad. Barzani has strong ties withTurkey, last year Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan paid a historic visit to Barzani’s stronghold, Kurdistan region’s capital, Arbil. Erdogan is the first Turkish high official ever has visited Kurdistan. The regional game even divides the Kurdish leaders in Iraq. The formula is obvious.

A radical political dilemma is looming in Iraq, the recent standoff is only the fore. However, this political game will lead either to a bloody internal war that the consequences unknown, or to a demise of a country called Iraq. Let’s see!

Blog: abdullahawez.com

Twitter: @abdullahawez

General Mobilization, a call from Doustourna:

“Doustourna, we’re from the street and we’ll come back to it”

Political activists from Doustourna have called via facebook to a “General Mobilization” in front of the National Constituent Assembly on December 30 from 9 a.m. to midday to criticize the draft law providing for the provisional organisation of the public authorities presented by the the majority tripartite coalition, which comprises Ennahdha Movement, the Congress for the Republic party and the Democratic Forum for Labour and Liberties. The sit-in actually continues until this minute. According to Doustourna, this draft law will re-establish dictatorship bcause of the following reasons:

- The powers of the prime minister are absolute and illimited (The Prime Ministeris from Ennahdha party).

- The powers of the president of the republic are very limited.

- The referundum on the constitution was not mentioned.

The goals of the “General Mobilization” and the continuing Occupy Bardo are mainly:

-  The seperation between the three powers.

-   50%+1 are necessary to nominate the three presidents (the president of the Assembly, the president of the republic and the president of the government)

-  The adoption of each article of the constitution requires a two-third majority

-  A two-third majority is necessary for the ratification of the constitution in case of a second reading.

- Insertion of the Code of Personal Status in the constitution

- Members of the Constituent Assembly should not hold positions in the government.

-  Live broadcast of the negotiations of the Constituent Assembly.

- 50%+1 votes are necessary to grant and repeal confidence from the government (the draft proposes 50+1 to grant confidence and 2/3 to repeal it.)

- Bringing killers of martyrs to court without delay.

- Granting the injured of the revolution their rights.

- Giving unemployed people from Gafsa priority over others concerning job opportunities in the field of phosphate.
- The independence of the judiciary

Representatives of the political parties and components of civil society as well as thousands of citizens are occping Bardo.

The Salafists Sit-in at the Faculty of Arts and Humanities of Manouba, Tunis prompts a reaction on the part of Bardo secularist sit-inners:

Salafist students have been holding a sit-in in the Faculty of Arts and Humanities in Manouba, Tunis, since Monday, December 28 after a girl wearing niqab was prevented from sitting for the exam. Lessons were suspended and other students prevented from sitting for their exams. The number of girls wearing the full-face veil are 3 out of 40,000 students. Salafist students have been camping out in front of the Dean’s offic who said he was held hostage all night on the first day of the sit-in. Salafist students asked for the right of girls wearing the niqab tobe enrolled at universities and to sit for exams. They also asked for a prayer room at university and no gender mixing in classrooms. The last demand which challenges a whole tradition of education in Tunisia was denied later on. The Dean affirmed that he had been physically abused on Wednesday after salafists broke into the universities despite suspending lectures.

In response to violence against the Dean, university teachers, students, political parties representatives, trade unionists and citizens rallied in front of the Constituent Assembly in Bardo on Thursday, December 1, to add other demands to those claimed by the sit-inners. They emphasized the importance of respecting academics, separating between powers and not between genders and denounced extremism.

Testimony of a student who witnessed violence at the Faculty of Manouba and took part in the Bardo sit-in (Video shot in December 1)

The protest was an action part of the general strike decided by the General Higher Education and Scientific Research Federation stemming from the Tunisian General Labour Union, following the violence against the Dean of the Faculty of Manouba.

Among the sit-inners who were camping out in front of the Constituent Assembly, a number of citizens has come from the Gafsa, the Mining Basin to claim their right to work and denounce the maldistribution of wealth. Citizens also demounced mixing religion in politics and education which distracts Tunisians from the real issues such as employment, the independence of the judiciary and the injured of the revolution.

The Commission on public authorities’ provisional organisation had adopted, on December 2, the draft law providing for the provisional organisation of the public authorities after some amendments that increased the prerogatives of the President of the Republic and reduced those of the Prime Minister. The amendments also ensured the adoption of the country’s new constitution with a two-third majority by the National constituent Assembly or else a referendum would be held.

Islmists pour to Bardo

On Saturday, December 3, thousands of islamists and secularists held parallel protests as islamists and salafists poured in hundreds to Bardo in answer to the sit-in in which has been staged there since Wednesday. They claimed that the people wanted an Islamic regime and that the Bardo sit-inners should accept the will of Tunisians who have elected the only religious Tunisian party Ennahdha in a relative majority and respect Islam which is the religion of the vast majority. Islamists waved Ennahda flags and black banners of the Salafist Hizb Tahrir which did not get a licence and did not take part in the elections held on October 23. Islamists asserted that secularist governments in Tunisia never gave them the full right to exercise the Islamic faith in total freedom and claimed the right to niqab for girls. They considered the attempt to ban the niqab at university to be much similar to Ben Ali’s ban of the hijab (the veil) in public places.

The Bardo sit-in is continuing. Keep up with all the developments and lively discussions on the ground via this live channel.

Yesterday’s parliamentary elections in Egypt is a case in point. Certainly, there was a sense of hope written on the faces of Egyptians who voted, as perhaps a first step in reclaiming their country. But who did they vote for? Undoubtedly, the Muslim Brotherhood will garner a strong position in the new government. But does that necessarily mean an end to democracy even before it starts?

It came as a surprise to some to find out that in recent months, the Muslim Brotherhood has advocated strongly on behalf of foreign investment in Egypt, and on behalf of job creation. Even though there are fears in the air that women’s rights are in danger, and that a return to religious fundamentalism is in the offing, still, the Brotherhood, at least for now, doesn’t seem to dwell on such things, but focuses its rhetoric on jobs. Is this just a ploy to win elections, or is it the real deal?

There is no doubt that ordinary people on the streets of Cairo, and throughout the region, yearn for many of the same things that are sought after the world over, like freedom, dignity and economic security. It would seem to make sense, therefore, that these causes should be at the heart of any successful political campaign, even campaigns conducted by those with leanings toward religious fundamentalism. In other words, to the extent that the people on the street are deeply committed to such things as freedom, democracy and jobs, then to that extent, any political party, regardless of its ideological inclinations, will have no choice but to speak about, and deliver on, the causes which are most important to the people, in order to win elections, and most importantly, to win hearts and minds.

That, at least, is the hope for the revolution that some call the Arab Awakening.

Of course, there are no guarantees, especially when you’re talking about political revolutions. In fact, most times things go badly, before getting any better. But there are things, three things in particular, that may help to move a revolution in the right direction, in a direction that is in line with the aspirations of the people.

The first thing that can help bring success to a revolution is to embrace a vision, a vision of hope, that calls for change which is positive, realistic and attainable. For example, if it is freedom and jobs you want, then advocate on behalf of these, because they are within the realm of possibility. And in fact, personal freedom and job creation go hand in hand. Any regime which strives for economic growth and job creation in this globalized world of ours, will  have no choice but to allow some measure of freedom, as a way of instilling a sense of trust among prospective investors. These freedoms may be limited somewhat, as in the case of China, but greater openness is indispensable to economic growth.

The second factor that helps to bring success to a revolution is to bring life to a vision of hope using the right tactics, and this involves a strategy of non-violence. You don’t want to demonize certain individuals, or certain groups, because this will cause such groups to retreat into their own corners, in preparation for civil war. You want to be inclusive of all people, and advocate on behalf of a vision which is welcoming to all, and which inspires everyone to come together in common purpose. And you want your voice to be heard throughout the land, while shying away from violence, even in the face of violent attacks by the opposition, which for the most part has been the case in places like Egypt and Tunisia. Syria is another matter, but the violence there by the government is so overwhelming, that some violent resistance is inevitable.

The third, and perhaps paramount aspect of a successful revolution is to pick leaders in the mold of visionaries like Gandhi, King and Mandela, who inspired their people, and who used non-violence to give substance to the aspirations of the people. They were not motivated by revenge. Gandhi could have turned the people against the British, but he didn’t. King had reason to turn against his country, but he didn’t. And Mandela could have launched a campaign to turn against the whites, and confiscate their property, but he didn’t. Instead, these leaders chose a different path: to advocate on behalf a vision of hope, to give substance to their vision using non-violent means, to be all-inclusive in their approach, and to deliver on promises made so as to give hope for a better future.

The Arab Awakening is at a crossroads. We can become entrenched ideologically, and consolidate political power by demonizing one another. Or we can choose instead to embrace a vision of hope, and deliver on that promise with real change, change that capture hearts and minds, and that gives life to the aspirations of the people. The choice is ours and everything we love and hold dear hangs in the balance.

Please visit us at www.sellingavisionofhope.org

Statistics shown that the use of nuclear power raised by some countries while other countries faced difficulties to begin their nuclear programs. The most powerful countries monopolized this power for their own interests, and they allow their close allies from less developed countries to benefit from this power while other countries that have independent or semi-independent policies are facing difficulties to use this power even for peaceful needs. While most countries in the third world are moaning due to lack of electricity, in 2009, 15% of the developed world’s electricity came from nuclear power. In the Middle East especially the need of nuclear power for making electricity is inevitable because of lack of water and countries like Turkey and Jordan doesn’t have oil or other energy resources to get benefit from it, so they need nuclear power to make electricity for their citizens.

Israelis the only Middle Eastern country that has nuclear power for both peaceful and military needs. Very recently, while all countries over the world signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, Israelis the only country all over the world that hasn’t signed it. A lot of observers believe that since fifties Israel has gained nuclear power, but until now neither the major powers nor United Nations even discussed Israel’s nuclear program just to make sure if the suspects are right or wrong. In 1974, Israeli President Ephraim Katzir said that “it has always been our intention to develop a nuclear potential. We now have that potential”. That’s despite a lot of other evidences that published in British newspapers which strengthen suspects over Israel’s nuclear power. Based on an article that Mordechai Vanunu a former Israeli nuclear technician published on The Sunday Times, Israel’s channel 10 made 3D video which clearly shows the nuclear plants in Israel(1).  I think Vanunu gave us adequate evidences to make us believe thatIsrael has nuclear weapons for a long time.

Iranwhich is same as Israel situated in the Middle East began its nuclear program in Shah’s era before Islamic revolution in 1979. It has stated its uranium enrichment program solely for peaceful purposes and since February 1992 has permitted the IAEA to inspect its nuclear facilities. United Nations which is superintended by the five superpowers unfairly wants to assail Iran, and they are going to jostle Iran to quit its nuclear program by announcing new sanctions against it. Those moves are happening while The IAEA couldn’t find any evidences to show that Iran is using its program for not tranquil needs.  As incoming Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano said he had not seen any evidence in IAEA official documents that Iran was seeking the ability to develop nuclear weapons(2).

I think if we even talk about both Israeli and Iranian nuclear programs based on suspects not on manifests, there are more evidences that indicate Israelhas nuclear weapons. According to excerpt from 160-page secret DIA report in 1999 Israel has had 60-80 nuclear weapons inventories while, Iran has had none(3). Western powers are arguing that if Irangets the nuclear bomb it may use it against other nations, but they are neglecting what Israelalready used it against Arabs during Arab-Israeli war in the October 1973. According to a detailed account contained in Time magazine, Israelassembled about a dozen bombs and readied them in this war. Now not because we love Iran, but we have the right to ask the United Nations why you are very harassed by Iran’s nuclear program while, Israel which same as Iran allocated in Middle East has more than 100 nuclear weapons with the components and the ability to build atomic, neutron and hydrogen bombs according to The Risk Report (4(5). Israel’s nuclear program began and still operates under tight secrecy, but Iran’s nuclear program operates under the eyes of IAEA‎ in semi-open place. Not just that in early 1968, the CIA issued a report concluding thatIsrael had successfully started production of nuclear weapons (6).  Here we can see the gap difference on how major powers are acting with nations in this region while, they are talking about justice and equality. I think becauseIran is independent in its policy theUnited States wants impedeIran’s nuclear program by claiming thatIran tries to get nuclear weapons. According to evidences that we exposed aboveIsrael has got nuclear weapon since 70s or even earlier, but becauseIsrael is west’s pampered baby no one can investigate with it.

As I explicated above, we can easily see the differences of the way that major powers acting with the countries in this region. United States the most powerful country in the world is making discrepancy in the way of acting with countries in this region, so that make tyrannized countries to loathe United States and turn their powers against it. Therefore, to end conflicts in this region United Nations should create an equal atmosphere for all nations to use nuclear power for peaceful means, or United Nations and IAEA should halt all of them to use it.

References:

(1) Israel’s Dimona Nuclear Weapons Factory In 3D [Videocassette]. (2004). N.p.: Israeli Weapons Ltd.

(2) Iran and weapons of mass destruction (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved  June 19, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

(3) Rumsfeld’s War (Regnery, 2004), pp. 194-223.

(4) Israel: Plutonium Production The Risk Report Volume 2 Number 4 (July-August 1996).

(5) Israel: Uranium Processing and Enrichment The Risk Report Volume 2 Number 4 (July-August 1996).

(6) The Samson Option. Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy Seymour M Hersh, [New York: Random House, 1991].

Also I have benefitted from:

• Center for Documents of The Imposed War, Tehran. (مرکز مطالعات و تحقیقات جنگ)
• Israel The Nuclear Potential of Individual Countries Treaty on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons Problems of Extension Appendix 2 Russian Federation Foreign Intelligence Service 6 April 1995.

Some websites that I have benefitted from:

• http://www.israeli-weapons.com/
• www.aljazeera.net/english
• www.middle-east-online.com

This’ll be my first departure from Australia since repatriating nearly a decade ago. After spending 20 years based in Verbier, Switzerland, I’ve been rediscovering Australian culture, from Sydney to Yamba, Sandy Beach to Tamworth, to Newcastle, to Auburn in Sydney, before moving north again to Byron Bay. It seems settling down is not to be a quick and easy process for me.

I met comedian Akmal Saleh one night in a service station outside Tweed Heads. I was returning from the Gold Coast having watched the ‘crew screening’ of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader, when who did I see filling up petrol in front of me? Akmal Saleh no less.

Being a fan, and knowing he’s a resident of the Byron Shire I thought I’d go say g’day and see if he’d do a comedy piece for my www.byronvibe.com website. With a flash of his brooding eyes and a shrug of his shoulders, his inimitable pursed grin replied “yeah, sure”.

A couple weeks later, we were wandering down main street in Byron, vox popping with Frank and some other randoms, having a laugh. (View clips here

After several months passed I get a call from Akmal asking if I’d be interested in going to Egypt to shoot a story. I had to think for all of a micro second before responding with an emphatic YES.

Of course the project had a low probability of coming off, as every project seems to at first in the film biz, so I didn’t get too excited as it was february and the trip was scheduled for August. There was a while to go and any number of factors could cancel the project, the instability of the new military government but one of note.

But we had good advice on that matter from an expert on Egyptian affairs who had recently returned from Egypt as well as another friend of Akmal’s who’d been a solicitor in Egypt for many years, and that seemed good enough for me.

Months rolled by. A couple of meetings at Lulu’s in Mullum. Phone calls from Akmal and I’m thinking, “this guy’s serious! Maybe it will happen!”

Sam has been a solicitor in Egypt for many years

Mitigating circumstances meant Akmal had to go in August or he couldn’t go at all… We tried to get a couple of production companies on board, but really time had run out and we had to make a decision: Go it alone or cancel the trip. But Akmal was keen, so with a month left he said “let’s go!”

New passport and visas had to be sorted. Camera equipment had to be sourced. The desire to shoot with Sony’s latest F3 rig had to give way to the reality of running gun in a place like the streets of Egypt and we decided on Sony’s less cumbersome and more discreet EX1, a compact yet high def solution from the friendly guys at Pro Cam in Brisbane.

With a week to go, packing down my gypsy abode should have been an easy process, but a spent tension pulley in the fan belt config meant I had to tow it to the Gold Coast at a cost which would have been better spent on the trip to Europe (yes, Europe, after Egypt, but that’s another story). The damn plastic spindle cost 90 bucks but the replacement of it cost $800 as they had to pull the front end off…

This setback could only be looked at one way. As a preparation to the many contigencies that I knew Egypt was going to throw at me once we were on the ground. Like a war of attrition I began to cross tasks off my list of things to do, before finally cramming tripod, audio gear, cameras and lenses, clothes, laptop and mobile-office kit into two backpacks and a ready-to-shoot bag. About a 50kg load all up.

Parking the ‘Hotel Benz’ at Karin’s (thanks Karin) I loaded my gear into Catie’s Van (Akmal’s wife and the production’s Line Producer) before we proceeded to the Gold Coast airport. The plan was for me to go two weeks prior to them to film the Abu El Haggag religious festival in Luxor which was advertised as being on the 17th and 18th July. This festival is a coming together of Muslims and Christians in a two day parade through the streets of Luxor around the ancient mosque of Abu El Haggag.

Abu El Haggag Mosque and Temple

Nothing like getting thrown in the deep end, on my own in a country I’ve never been to, don’t speak the language of (hoping my french will get me by if English doesn’t), with some expensive camera kit in tow, much to the consternation of family and friends who see the evening news regarding instability in the region…

But I was on my way to the airport, the one sure sign a project is on and the only time one allows oneself to get excited about the journey ahead, because today, I’m off to Egypt.

When Ismail Sidqi pasha refused that Egypt would get-in the war of 1948, he wasn’t a traitor to Egypt or loving Israel. All about it is that Ismail Sidqi was responsible for an economic renaissance in Egypt; he was the one to develop Alexandria and its beaches… The man feared that the war would destroy all the economic steps which Egypt took in the past years preceding the war.

But, Ismail Sidqi didn’t continue on his stance, El-Wafd party took a populist stance and went with the flow, supporting the war decision. Ismail Sidqi felt as a politician that he would lose people if he kept his stance, so he withdrew and supported the war, preferring popularity between the people over the interest of Egypt.

We are all subjected to Ismail Sidqi’s situation and we are required to to ask many questions, such as: Is this war in the interest of Egypt? Are we obliged to get involved into the war? Would we choose between the interest of Egypt and our desire to go with the flow along with the crowds to achieve personal political gains? This article discusses these barbed questions.

Firstly: Peace and Democracy
We all know that Egypt had a democratic parliamentary life till the coup d’état of 1952, and since this coup till this moment, we suffer from a totalitarian bloody militarist rule. But, we have to ask ourselves: Why did a coup happen? Does that have a relation with the case of peace and war?

The historical sequencing of events… Egypt entered a war in 1948 despite it wasn’t qualified to fight Israel from the side of development of weapons and efficiency of combatants, so this war changed two important elements:
1- Egypt’s commitment to the treaty of 1936 concerning to the evacuation of the British of Egypt. The treaty included the emergence of the British army after 20 years (in 1956) on a condition that the Egyptian army be advanced and able to defend Egypt. The palace deliberately intended to plunge Egypt to the war, from one hand for king Farouk’s desire for becoming a caliph of Muslims and on another hand, to destroy the Egyptian army, therefore to disable the evacuation process. That exactly what happened, after the defeat of the Egyptian army in the war, the weakness of the Egyptian army appeared to everyone, everything which was already built inside the army was destroyed, therefore, Egypt lagged what it pledged in the treaty of 1936, therefore, the evacuation won’t be on its time… That resulted dangerous political complications, most importantly the cancelation of the treaty of 1936, cutting-off of the diplomatic solution to solve the conflict, which paved the ground for a coup d’état solution to the evacuation issue. The war occurred on the way of Egypt independence.

2- The Egyptian soldiers were subjected to a huge defeat in the war of 1948, the toughest of it was the fall of many Egyptian soldiers under the siege of the Israeli army, the Egyptian soldiers became under the mercy of the Israelis who allowed the passage of food to them in order not to die of hunger. Then, in February 1949, Egypt was compelled to sign the armistice agreement with Israel in order to be able to get back its besieged soldiers. Those soldiers came back to Egypt in shame and dishonor (Gamal Abdel Nasser was personally of them), they went to a war and strongly lost it and were besieged, because of them Egypt was compelled to sign an armistice agreement with Israel to get them back.

In order for those soldiers to take away their shame of themselves, they created the lie of the corrupt weapons, despite the nonexistence of any proof on it. When the judiciary investigated in these rumors and proved their falsehood, they accused the regime of corruption. They didn’t have the courage to admit that the war was lost because of their failure. Starting from here, the claims to cleaning the army began, so the movement of the soldiers happened, which was at its beginning (as the statement of Muhammad Naguib) a movement of military soldiers aiming at cleaning the army, then the army would move back to its barracks. But, after the soldiers found themselves in control of everything, they didn’t abandon the authority, despite that the revolution court proved the nonexistence of any corrupt weapons in the war of 1948 which was the rumor that the coup d’état happened for.

We lost democracy and we suffered from oppression for 60 years, we were obliged to make the 25 January revolution, all of that because of a rumor or the soldiers shy of their defeat in the war of 1948. If we hadn’t entered the war, there wouldn’t had been the defeat and there would had been the rumor, there would had been the coup d’état and we would have been now celebrating 90 years of parliamentary democracy in Egypt. The relationship between peace and democracy is very strong. War opens the door for internal tyranny under the slogans “military secrets, the homeland interest, national security, no voice comes above the battle”. In wars, countries enforce “state of emergency/marshal law”, these are procedures to limit freedoms of citizens, not the enemies. In wars, armies inflate, opening the way for military coups (that’s why Ancient Rome banned the entrance for armies to the capital). Moreover, tyrants exploit wars to turn away the attention of their peoples from democratic reform, we all see how Arab tyrants exploit Israel to distract the Arab peoples from democratic reform issues and to distort the image of honorable opponents with silly charges of the type “Zionism, normalization, agent…”.

Secondly: Peace and Economic Growth
Regardless od the case of Ismail Sidqi which started my article with, Tawfik el-Hakim narrates, in his masterpiece “The Return of Consciousness”, information uncovering for us how wars destroyed the Egyptian economy.

- Tawfik el-Hakim narrates how the Egyptian army, under commands of Nasser, threw sacks of gold to the tribes of Yemen during the Yemen war, in order to sway them to the Egyptian side, which cause the depletion of the Egyptian gold stock… At the time when simple Egyptians were happy with Nasser who made them employees in the government, earning a few Egyptian pounds monthly!

- Tawfik also includes, the cost that Egypt paid during the 6 years between 1967 and 1973. He spread the numbers and said that what Egypt spent on the wars, if it had been spent on internal development, the share for each village would have been a million dollars (noting the difference between the value of the currency at that time; a million dollars in 1967 is equivalent to 5 million dollar by today’s standards). Imagine, what would Egypt look like now if we didn’t enter those wars, and spending this money on building schools, hospitals, streets and developing the civil society? What’s really silly is the governmental non-sense, in order to escape this question says that Israel was the one to start the war and occupied Sinai, when in reality, Nasser had announced the war in his speech on 15 July, 1967, before that he had used the right of land blockade against Israel which is of the rights of the the belligerent country… That if we ignored the historical novel which says that the decision to expel the international forces was taken by the Field Marshal “Abdel Hakim Amer” without Nasser knowledge, at the time when the Field Marshal the Army Chief of Staff, contesting Nasser in his authority!

Taking a look at the world around us… Look how America was hit from its war budgets and how America is solving the problem now by pulling its armies from Iraq and Afghanistan, also by dismantling some of the military bases in Europe.

See how the civil war weakened the Somali people and turned them into poor people despite the natural resources which Somalia has. See how the nuclear ambition of North Korea transformed the citizens into poor people, thousands of them die of hunger monthly. Look at the Axis countries in the second world war (Japan, Germany, Italy) and how they entered the war as strong countries and went out of it smashed under foreign occupation, and still are paying the price of this war till our day.

Peace is the strategic choice for all the people who want to live in luxury. On the other hand, the people who choose the wars would suffer poverty forever till they realize that wars drain their resources and the effort of their people.

Thirdly: Peace and Life of Humans
Does the one who takes the decision of war realize that he is making a decision of execution tens of thousands of humans, including who are going to have permanent disabilities in the war? The life of the one who takes the decision of the war won’t be subjected to danger, he would keep sitting in his air-conditioned office in the capital, while the youth and the patriots from both side are paying their souls because of the failure of the political leadership in reaching a diplomatic peaceful solution.

I can’t believe any official numbers regarding the Egyptian victims in our wars with Israel. Some militarists estimated the victims of Egypt in the war of 1973 as million martyrs! Other than the injured, the lost and the prisoners of war. I can say that when Israel aired the documentary “Spirit of Shaked” about executing Egyptian prisoners of war, Egyptians asked themselves if there were still Egyptian prisoners of war in Israel, but none of the officials knew the answer of the question.

What is the reason to make a country enters a war to lose its youth and the rest lose their limbs, imagine the population percentage between both genders (as what happened in Germany after the second world war, the percentage was one man for every 5 women)! Why all that when there are alternative solutions to solve conflicts?
I know that in the last decades, suicidal orientations have appeared under the naming “martyrdom.. industry of death, asceticism in life, challenging death…), but here I speak to reasonable who seek the interest of their homeland and not committing suicide, who search for life not death.

The goal of any conflict is to solve the conflict, not to exterminate the other. The goal of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is to achieve the full Palestinian right, not exterminating the Israelis. If you were looking for the Palestinians’ interests, then the solution is in peaceful negotiation, not in entering war which both sides die in, the Samson style (on me and my enemies)? But, if you were seeking suicide, please, commit suicide quietly without killing millions of innocents with you.

Epilogue
When I was choosing the title of the article, I wanted to title it “Peace to Egypt, not Israel”, but I preferred it to be “Peace to Egypt Before it is to Israel”… Because, peace would benefit everyone, Egypt, Israel, Palestine, even Iran and Turkey. Peace will benefit the whole world. Our role as Egyptians is to think sanely of the interest of our homeland, the interest of our revolution, the project of democratic transformation, our ambition for economic growth and our fear on lives of our brothers, our children and friends.
The peoples have to choose and each reasonable society have their mind and know their own salvation.

Maikel Nabil Sanad
El-Marg prison – 2 ع [‘ayn]
2011/8/7

Over the years, different people the world over embraced different interpretations of “freedom.”

Janice Joplin used to sing of freedom as “…nothing left to lose.” Is that what it means to be free? Or is that the state of mind that is needed to put everything on the line, and to venture forth in search of freedom?

The framers of the U.S. Constitution thought of freedom as conferring certain inalienable rights to the citizenry, such as freedom of religion, speech, a free press, free assembly, and free association.

On January 6, 1941, President Roosevelt spoke of the four fundamental freedoms that people “everywhere in the world” are entitled to: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear.

However you define it, the notion of freedom has captured hearts and minds of people in all four corners of the world. And still somehow, it is often difficult to define what exactly it means to be free. Yet we realize, as we fight for freedom, that it is important to understand what it is to be free, so that at the end of the day, we know what it is we’re looking for, and recognize what it is when we finally find it.

Certainly there is a role for government to play in assuring to their people the basic right of freedom. Liberty is enhanced to the extent that governments undo the shackles of oppressive rule, external control, interference, regulation, etc. Freedom also grows as a person comes to believe that he is the master of his destiny and that he can make the decisions to chart his course in life, without excessive and unreasonable interference from government. And of course, freedom connotes a fundamental respect for human life, and the protection of a person’s right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

However, just as government can play its role, the individual himself has a role to play as well, in fighting for and sustaining a sense of personal freedom. It could well be argued that the greatest freedom of all is the freedom to think. Rene Descartes famously said, “I think, therefore I am.” Inherent in the human condition, and our existence as free human beings, is our ability to think, and I would add, our ability to think clearly, with common sense and personal dignity, unhampered by the biases, suspicions, prejudices and superstitions which are thrust upon us, at an early age, by the societies we find ourselves.

As we search for freedom in such diverse places as the Middle East, or the Far East, or the West, or wherever the need arises; if it is really freedom we’re after, and if we dare to be true to ourselves, then we have no choice but to let go of past prejudices and wrong-headed thinking, in favor of what makes sense, and what promises hope for the future.

Our challenge, as freedom fighters, is not an easy one. All too often, we are called upon to put everything on the line, in hope of finding something that may never be found. But perhaps the greatest challenge of all, as we seek our freedom, and the freedom of others, is to break the chains that bind us to the thinking of the past, and that keep us imprisoned in the psychological cages that we have built for ourselves. If we find the courage and the wisdom to break these chains of the mind, then, and only then, will we shine the light on the path to freedom.

Please join us, with your comments, at www.sellingavisionofhope.org

(A picture of the “sign of peace”)

Over 6 decades, Egyptians tried many strategies for opposition, starting from opposition from within the ruling party (and it’s the weakest strategy), to the militant opposition (and it’s the most violent strategy) – all these attempts failed. Till Egyptians discovered a new strategy, “the peacefulness” and the Egyptian revolution came out chanting “peaceful… peaceful”, and the peacefulness succeeded in achieving what the Kalashnikov couldn’t.
6 weeks as well is approximately the period of the Arab-Israeli conflict… For 64 years, Arabs tried many strategies dealing with Israel (starting from being agents to terrorism), and also all the attempts failed… So, why don’t we start adopting a peaceful strategy dealing with the state of Israel to reach full rights to all the peoples of the region? That research paper is an attempt of me to explain how peaceful means can end that conflict completely, thus all the peoples of the region rest and their suffering ends.

However, dear reader I have to warn you, if what leads you to deal with that case is the motivation of revenge and the desire to get-rid of Jews then that research isn’t directed towards you, so don’t waste your time reading it. This research is directed toward who wish to end the conflict by fair way giving all parties their legitimate rights.

The first scene: Security Council decision – November 1947
The first scene which I’m going to concentrate on between numerous historical scenes I’m going to present. It’s the events which followed the decision of Security Council to divide Palestine in November 1947… What were the reactions on the decision? Were these reactions correct or wrong?
After 6 days of issuing Security Council decision, the Arab League met and took a decision to prevent Security Council decision by force (by weapons)… Arabs ignored the peaceful and the diplomatic ways, they didn’t resort to a dialog and didn’t discuss Security Council in its decision. All they did was each one of them went to bring his weapon and chant “death to Jews”.

At the time when Arabs were drunk with the fever of blood-shedding Jews, Israelis were making a world-wide diplomatic campaign to convince the whole world to support the born state of Israel. The United States of America felt that Security Council decision will ignite a war in the region, so it provided a recommendation that to Security Council demanding canceling the partition plan. As usual, Arabs were busy preparing violence, they didn’t care for that American step, and Israelis didn’t go back to their homeland until they convinced the Americans to take back their recommendation from Security Council.

Here, a question arises: What if Arabs thought about peaceful means, and traveled as well to to convince the Americans with their point of view, also the rest of Security Council members? What if America didn’t take back its recommendation about canceling the partition plan? Arabs could have canceled the Security Council decision, therefore obstructing the establishment of the state of Israel from the first place, but unfortunately they were busy with violence, weapons and the desire to kill, so they lost everything.

The second scene: declaring the state of Israel – 15 May 1948
Days passed after the decision of Security Council and it wasn’t canceled. Based on the decision, Israel declared its independence as soon as the British mandate for Palestine ended. So, why didn’t also the Palestinians declared their state at that time, backed by the legitimacy of Security Council decision, and it’s the decision in which Israel adheres to strongly because it’s the decision which gave it legitimate existence? The answer simply is that Palestinians and Arabs were busy with war and blood, and they weren’t interested in peaceful ways, of the type of holding a parliament and heading to the United Nations to declare a Palestinian state.
Once more, Palestinians wasted a golden chance because of being busy with violence.

The third scene: Moshe Sharet initiative – 1953
After declaring independence, David Ben-Gurion headed the Israeli government, who was a Zionist leader adopting radical stances firm against Israel. The chance for achieving peace at his era was very weak. In the year 1953 the Israeli Knesset had its second Prime Minister for Israel who was Moshe Sharet, who was contrary to Ben-Gurion, believing in peace and giving Arabs their rights. Moshe Sharet demanded from the Israeli Knesset to delegate him in making peace talks with Arabs. The Knesset agreed to delegate Moshe Sharet in negotiating on anything and everything (including the right of Palestinian refugees to return inside the Israeli lands).
Moshe Sharet went to all Arab leaders asking for dialog, all of them refused and insisted to settle the conflict by war and violence. Gamal Abdel Nasser agreed on the dialog on the condition of secrecy, because Gamal Abdel Nasser didn’t have the courage to face his people that he was making peaceful negotiations with Israel.
Thus, Moshe Sharet fell in 1954 because of Moshe Sharet failure to convince Arabs of peaceful mechanisms to settle the conflict. David Ben-Gurion became once again to be Prime Minister closing many doors for a peaceful solution to the conflict.

Why Arabs don’t ask themselves: What if they accepted Moshe Sharet initiative? What if these negotiations succeeded and the Palestinian state was established at then, and the refugees came back home? Once again, Arabs lose because of their adherence to violent mechanisms and their objection to peaceful mechanisms.

The fourth scene: the assassination of king Abdallah – 1951
After the Arab defeat in in 1948 war and the truce agreement with Israel in Rhodes – February 1949, and because of not declaring a Palestinian state, Gaza became under the Egyptian administration while the West Bank under the Jordanian administration.

King Abdallah Ben Al-Sharif Hussein, king of Jordan, realized the importance of reaching a peaceful solution to the conflict after the failure of the military attempt. He went to visit Jerusalem along with his peaceful efforts, but the Palestinian terror was waiting for him. He was assassinated inside Aqsa mosque, so that the first peaceful Arab effort be assassinated towards Israel.

After 60 years of assassinating king Abdallah, we ask ourselves: did Abdallah’s benefited Palestinians? Of course not, because Jordan was dragged to a conflict with Israel which didn’t end except after the agreement of Wadi Arabah in 1994, while the West Bank was subject to Israeli occupation and still to that day suffering of a spread of the Israeli army and Israeli settlements in. If king Abdallah hadn’t been assassinated, the West Bank would have now been without settlements and Jordan wouldn’t have lost in its economy and its youth in a conflict for 40 years with Israel. Once again, Arabs lose because of their inclination toward violence and their objection to the peaceful means.

The fifth scene: the Egyptian peace treaty – 1979
In the year 1977, Sadat realized the importance of what king Abdallah was doing in the year 1951, so he decided to start an Arab peace initiative. He visited Jerusalem in November, 1977 and afterward, immediately the Egyptian-Israeli peace talks started. All the Arab parties in the conflict were invited to to join the peace talk, but the Arabs found it hard to make a peaceful work. They launched the “The Three No’s of Khartoum”, objecting any peaceful solution to the conflict, adhering to militarist settlement.

Today, after 32 years of signing the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, we ask ourselves: what if Arabs accepted the peaceful negotiations in Sadat era? What would the Arabs have lost if they negotiated at that time without a result? Was what Jordan take in 1994 more than what it would have taken if it joined Sadad initiative in 1979? Was what the Palestinians take in Oslo, 1993, more than what would they have taken in 1979?
Once again, Arabs waste the chance because of their adherence to the armed solutions not the peaceful solutions.

The sixth scene: Camp David 2 – year 2000
In the year 2000, many positive circumstances gathered. President Bill Clinton was at the end of his presidency and wanted to end the conflict in the Middle East before he leaves office. At the same timing, Israel was lead Ehud Barak of the Labor Party of Israel – Labor Party is a leftist political party known by its support to peace process. Israel was on the eve of parliamentary elections, so Barak needed a success facilitating obtaining many seats in the next Knesset.
The talks had actually started at Camp David, Yasser Arafat, Ehud Barak, Bill Clinton, and who views what Israel offered at that time, would realize that Israel offered an offer in which Palestinians won’t obtain a similar offer forever. A state on the borders of 1967, Eastern Jerusalem the capital city, dismantling of settlements and the return of a percentage of refugees. Palestinians will go after two month from now (in September 2011) to the United Nations too declare a Palestinian state and they know well that they won’t obtain what Israel offered them in Camp David 2.

Yasser Arafat signature was only required and the United States guaranteed the agreement, in other words America would compel Israel to implement. However, Mubarak was annoyed of his absense in the talks, so as, he realized that it is of his interest that the conflict continues, so the relationship between Yasser Arafat and the Egyptian Intelligence was exploited, and he was pressured into objecting to sign the treaty. Emotionally provoking vocal phrases were raised, of the type: resistance, occupation, martyrs, uprising, treason, agents, Zionists. Arafat apologized and didn’t sign the treaty saying to Bill Clinton, “if I signed the treaty, you’ll walk in my funeral soon”.

What happened later on? George Bush, the son, came to White House, he wasn’t a man of peace of any kind. In the Israeli elections, Israelis felt that what Labor Party says is useless with Arabs, so Labor Party together with Meretz lost most of their seat and the Israeli right rose to authority, represented by Likud of the militarist background, allying itself with religious political parties of type of “Shas” and “The Jewish Home”. It objected to Camp David 2 and almost destroyed Labor Party, to the extent it’s now a very weak political party in Israel which isn’t influential in political life. Ehud Barak who used to be a hero of peace, didn’t forget at all the Arabs destroyed his strength and transformed him from a strong leader to a chief of a weak political party, so, Barak became an impeder to peace more than a supporter to it.

So, what do Arabs benefit of objecting Camp David 2? Did the Palestinian uprisings give the Palestinians 1% of what would have Camp David 2 give them? What would Arabs do now after the partners of peace in Israel have been destroyed and the governance there was took-over by fanatics and religiously-biased? Do Arabs imagine that they would get more than what was offered to them? What would happen now to any peace agreement after half of what Israel offered in 2000 became unacceptable and not possible to be offered in 2011? What did the Palestinians benefit of being the “sons of stones”? Wouldn’t be better for them to be the “sons of peace”?

Seventh scene: Arab Spring – 2011
When the Tunisian revolution started in December 2010, everyone looked at it as an exceptional case specific to Tunisia, and everyone dealt with the approach of “Egypt isn’t Tunisia” and “Libya isn’t Tunisia”. But, when the revolution succeeded in Egypt in overthrowing Mubarak and when the revolutions in Libya, Yemen, Syria and Bahrain erupted, everyone realized that the Arabic-speaking peoples knew the strength of the peaceful revolutions.

The Israeli right stood confused in front of a fateful question: “what if the Palestinians started a peaceful revolution”? Israel was accustomed to that the Palestinian resistance is militant, because using violence against Israel allows it to use its army in the framework of self-defense and no one would blame Israel when it chases child-kidnappers or killers of civilians. But, if the Palestinians started a peaceful revolution, Israel won’t be able to use its army, so what would it do? No one in Israel (and specifically the Israeli right) found an answer on that question, and the fear remained to them of a Tunisian revolution.
But, as one of Israel leaders said that “Israel’s success doesn’t depend on its smartness, but on the stupidity of its enemies”. The Palestinians wasted the chance in the second uprising in 15 May 2011, contrary to the rest of the Arab peoples, the Palestinians didn’t look for a Palestinian Tahrir square to protest in peacefully. Palestinians didn’t realize that the peacefulness has no relation with penetrating the borders, infringement on the territorial waters of Israel and chanting racist words. A peaceful sit-in disseminating racist ideas is exactly as the sit-in of Mostafa Mahmoud square, where peaceful protestors chanting shit thought, and of course that won’t lead to a result. The chance is still available for Palestinians to adopt the peaceful method of Tahrir before it’s too late.

(A picture of the biggest demonstrations in the history of Israel, Tel Aviv, 6 August 2011)

Peaceful Strategies toward Israel
- Why won’t we start trying peaceful strategies with Israelis and see if it would succeed as the peaceful Egyptian revolution succeeded? We tried violence for 6 centuries, so why don’t we try the peacefulness for 6 months?

- Before the eruption of the Egyptian revolution, the Egyptian demonstrators were at the beginning of their demonstration giving flowers to police officers and tell them “we’re not demonstrating against you,but against the regime”… So, why don’t we send flowers to Israelis and tell them “we are not antagonize you as individuals, but we are against your policies toward us and Palestine”?

- Also, before the Egyptian revolution, one of the opposition groups published on the internet a list with telephone numbers of Egyptian police officers and we started a campaign of calling those officers, trying to convince them to stop assaulting demonstrators… That campaign succeeded in attracting numerous police and army officers and ex-officers and their families, and they participated in our revolution.

So, why don’t we start in the same thing with Israelis? Why don’t we start communicating with ordinary Israeli individuals and tell them that the Mossad and the Israel Defense Forces actions are unacceptable, inhumane and obstruct peace in the region? Why don’t we convince try to them with the justice of our cause, if we really believe-in its just.

What if we each Egyptian person started adding two Israelis on his friends list on Facebook? If there were million Egyptians, each one of them can only affect two Israeli citizens, that means that we are affecting 2 million Israeli citizens (or a quarter of Israel census)… So, what if we put in consideration that Egypt has approximately 10 million Facebook users, and that each on of them has the ability to add 5000 friends to his friends list. The soft force is much stronger than any other violence you imagine.

It’s of my interest, of your the interest and the whole world’s interest that the conflict ends in Middle Easy, therefor I wish that we start a true beginning in Arab peaceful attempts for the sake of putting an end to the conflict and blood-shedding, and to establish a fair warm peace built on coexistence between the peoples of the region.

Maikel Nabil Sanad
El-Marg general prison
2 ع [‘ayn]
2011/7/29