Contrary to what the Turkish government would like you to believe, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, was not born out of thirst for baby’s blood. No, the Kurdish guerrillas in the mountains of Turkey are not all callous sociopaths who gain pleasure from terrorizing villages and kidnapping women and children. The propaganda machine, that is the Turkish state, has been hard at work since the 1970’s trying to paint the most horrific image of the Kurdish movement, and it has been relatively successful in swaying the opinions of major world powers, and a large portion of the general public.

The PKK is listed as a terrorist organization by a number of countries and international institutions, including the United States and the European Union. Since what constitutes “terrorism” has yet to be defined in international law, let’s take a look at what the word means according to Turkish law. In Article 1 of Turkey’s Anti-Terror Law (TMK), “terrorism” is defined as “any kind of act done … with the aim of changing the characteristics of the Republic as specified in the Constitution.”

Based on that description alone, one can infer that in Turkey any form of dissent can be categorized as terrorism. And when you take the racist nature of the country’s constitution into consideration, it becomes disturbingly clear that any advocacy of minority rights is severely punishable under Turkish law. This is the reason why dozens of local and international organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have called for the abolition of TMK.

Nevertheless, the US and EU stand firmly behind Turkey’s “war against terrorism”.

So what is it about the word “terrorism” that gives states license to persecute and harass without repercussion? In fact, when the term first appeared in the English language during the 18th century, it meant “systematic use of terror as policy”. Today, however, the word is vastly distorted and abused by oppressive governments to incite fear and intolerance in the populace. In recent years, we have witnessed a transformation of the term “terrorism” from denoting an instrument of governance to being synonymous with “opposition”.

It was Noam Chomsky who said “the terrorism they don’t like is called ‘terrorism’ and the terrorism they do like, because they carry it out or their allies carry it out, is called ‘counter-terrorism’”, which brings us to the Turkey-PKK issue.

Turkish intellectuals, in an effort to complicate the matter, present the conflict as a “chicken and egg” dilemma; an endlessly looping question of which came first and who is at fault. While the Turkish state cunningly uses the expression “counter-terrorism” to give the illusion that it is simply defending its sovereignty from vicious criminals who emerged suddenly to quench their thirst for destruction. But what they neglect to mention is the decades of brutal oppression and genocide that was imposed on the Kurdish population before they took to the mountains and began to fire back. It is noteworthy that when the PKK first began the armed struggle, most of its commanders and leaders had served prison sentences for pursuing civil and political rights for the Kurds within the democratic and legal boundaries of the Republic.

At this time, I’d like to pose this question to the dear reader: Who is the terrorist, the state that systematically arrests, represses, tortures and slaughters, or the disenfranchised minority who finally stands up and defends itself?

True, both parties employ violence in pursuit of political aims, but considering the scope and scale of the Turkish military and police forces – not to mention the state propaganda system – there is no way the two can be compared logically.

Perhaps even more damaging than the physical violence inflicted on Kurds in Turkey is the psychological terror. Since the country was established on false notions of cultural homogeneity and linguistic uniformity, the indigenous Kurdish population has suffered a distinctive sort of ethnic cleansing. Immediately following the formation of the Turkish Republic, the Kurdish language, along with schools, associations and publications – all manifestations of Kurdish identity – were prohibited. The term “Kurd” was banished. Turkish Army General and the country’s second president, Ismet Inonu, summarized the ideology of the new state in these terms: “Before the Turkish majority other elements have no kind of influence. At any price, we must Turkify the inhabitants of our land, and we will annihilate those who oppose.” Thus began the psychological war.

The policies and practices of devastation, depopulation and dismantlement of the Kurdish society continued into the 21st century, but these appalling facts are presented to the public under a different light. In a letter sent to his prime minister, former President Turgut Ozal suggested: “The scope of our activity in releasing press statements, leaking news, and if need be, spreading ‘disinformation’ should be increased.” This has been the government’s number one weapon in maintaining the status quo, as founder of Kurdish Institute in Paris, Kendal Nezan, explains, “Skillful and effective misinformation convinced a segment of the public that the Turkish state was in essence only defending its territorial integrity against terrorist maneuvers.” While sustaining this false appearance of virtue, Turkey has succeeded in rallying international support for its war against the Kurdish people.

Storming through neighborhoods, kicking down doors, snatching mothers and fathers away from their petrified children during late hours of the night; is this not terrorism? Perpetual arrests are standard for Kurds living in Turkey. Police regularly raid homes and offices of Kurdish individuals and organizations. Being Kurdish is all that’s necessary to fit the state’s vague depiction of a terrorist. Turkish prisons are overflowing with thousands of Kurdish activists and human rights defenders, as well as children, journalists and lawyers.

Violently attacking peaceful demonstrators; is this not terrorism? One characteristic of a democratic society is freedom of assembly, but in Turkey almost every nonviolent gathering organized by Kurds is brought to a bitter end by brutal police intervention. Time and again, peaceful protesters have been killed or severely injured by gas grenades, high pressured water cannons, rubber bullets, and – in the recent cases of Ayhan Yildirim and Murat Elibol – actual bullets.

Deliberately dropping bombs on civilian areas, killing scores of innocent children, and leaving others orphaned; using illegal chemical weapons; proudly posing for photos with mutilated corpses; continually shelling and conducting military raids during a ceasefire; are these acts not the embodiment of terrorism? And can the men and women who order and engage in such behavior not be regarded as terrorists, notwithstanding the flag under which they serve?

On the subject of terror and violence, Nelson Mandela famously stated that, “it is the oppressor who defines the nature of the struggle, and the oppressed is often left no recourse but to use methods that mirror those of the oppressor.” The PKK’s “terrorism” is an easy scapegoat for Turkey, but we mustn’t let be forgotten the decades of merciless persecution the Kurdish people endured before they resorted to armed action. The Kurds have repeatedly declared that they do not wish to change the borders of Turkey. And although making it clear that their struggle is for equality and fundamental human rights for minorities within a democratic Turkey, the state continues to label Kurdish activists as “terrorists” and “separatists”. Through official propaganda, the Turkish government breeds racism, intolerance and ignorance in the populace, allowing for this vicious circle of terror to persist.

In essence, Turkey’s Anti-Terror Law is an instrument of institutionalized racism, as it gives the government consent to round up Kurdish politicians and civil servants under the fallacious pretext of wiping out terrorism. Turkey is further emboldened, not only by the west’s continuing silence in regards to atrocities committed against the Kurds, but by its willingness to provide weapons and arms under the spurious justification of “fighting terrorism”. Additionally, the international media continues to accept and regurgitate Turkey’s psychological warfare of misinformation and lies, leading to the utter criminalization of the Kurds’ legitimate struggle for basic rights and freedoms. Only after Turkey abolishes its undemocratic Anti-Terror Law and, together with its western allies, decriminalizes the legitimate demands of the Kurdish people, will a peaceful and political solution to Turkey’s most fundamental issue be possible.

67 years ago, in Japan, “THE LITTLE BOY” didn’t mean innocence; it meant damage, pain and suffering. It wasn’t blue and wasn’t white, it was black and grey with spots of red all over the place. And most importantly it wasn’t a toy, it was the bomb that vanished Hiroshima!

It took only 60 seconds to kill 30% of the total population of Hiroshima, 90% of their doctors and 70% of their buildings were instantly turned into ash. Experts predicted it would take a city wiped off the map decades to ever be the same.

Three to four years after the A-bomb, Hiroshima rose from the ashes!

After all, naming a bomb that killed thousands of children “the little boy” wasn’t that cruel. It gave the Japanese the hope of a new start that a “little boy” can have while riding his bicycle for the first time. Each fall showed him the mistakes, which he should never repeat again. And instead of crying, he smiles and tries again and again until the day comes when he can let the winds wipe away all his painful memories as he ride his bicycle as fast as a bicycle can be ridden.

The people in Hiroshima couldn’t fight death, burns or diseases from the radiation, but they certainly could fight fear, despair and negativity. They knew that with hope and faith, everything is possible. They believed in the power of the human willingness, determination and his ability to recover. When people told them “the glass is half full”, they disagreed and refused to settle for anything less than a “full glass”!

As an Iraqi, my left and right brain sides are always in dispute.

My left side thinks we can never be Hiroshima, Iraq can never be the same, the damage can never be undone, the hurt and pain that each Iraqi carries over their shoulders can never be lifted and that we will have to live with the shame of not recovering forever. My left side thinks peace and happiness have left Iraq long ago, and he insists that they will never come back again. He reminds me every day of our mistakes as Iraqis, as a government and as humans.

And whenever someone asks me “where are you from?” he nags me to deny being an Iraqi, he screams loudly the names of the children who were killed by the Iraqis themselves, he sings the wedding songs of the newly weds who were killed on their wedding nights, and sometimes, he makes me listen to the Iraqi mothers telling their stories which always start with tragedy and end with uncertainty. And when I remind him of Hiroshima, with a voice full of rage and anger, trying to hold on to my last piece of hope, quietly he says “but we are Iraqis, we can never do the same!”

Then…just then, my right side wakes up, with his loud silence, reminding me of the days of Hulagu, when he raped, destroyed and shuttered Baghdad. The days when instead of giving up, Baghdad ran and took the hands of her history, medicine, astronomy and mathematics and hidden them inside of her, under her streets and between her walls, turning her rivers into a blue water which she later generously let us drink.

She was smart enough to know that with sword and hatred, you might be able to kill people, damage houses, or even make a city vanish! But she was sure that they could never erase our history, wipe away our culture. That the smell of smoke cannot replace the delicious smell of our tea, and no matter how bitter our pain is, we can never forget how sweet our date once tasted.

I still believe in Baghdad, in Hiroshima!
I refuse to settle for half-solutions, half governments, and that Iraqis will always live with half happiness, half satisfaction and that sometimes they only get to live half a life!
I still want to believe that I will not settle for half a country, I won’t get to choose between south and north, Sunni or Shia, I will never follow half a religion!
And no matter what my left-brain side says, I try to hold on, as hard as I can, to the belief that my right side will always be RIGHT.

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

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

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

By those young men and women, Baghdad Peace Festival was created, planned and executed in the mere period of 20 days of planning, and under the wings of Iraqi Alamal Association (IAA) a non-profit organization, and under very limited budgeting, they made the impossible come true, and I’m proud to be one of them; for they have made a name for themselves; Shbab Alamal (The Youth of Hope), and through live music by a young guitarist and Oud artist, rap songs and poems about peace, a theater play that shows the opinion of the youth about the current political situation and face-paints, children plays and much more; they made a smile draw in the faces of children, made a mother so proud of her daughter that she was a part of this, made a father so innocently remake his mind about the future of the war-torn Iraq, made an old man jealous that he would have been with them in spite of the grey hair on his head, but, little did they know, we will fill the space; because we are them!

A success is a short word for the description of this amazing monument, a shrine for all the pilgrims of peace in this land, despite all the darkness that -tries to- surround Baghdad, yet again, the Iraqi rose to the occasion, and made the impossible come true!

The Taliban were not exactly a friendly bunch when they ran things in Afghanistan. They made life difficult for the people with their distorted version of Islam. They kept women covered up and hidden away in the shadows. And they allowed al Qaeda to recruit and train in preparation for 9/11.

The consequences of the terror attack ran deep and have changed the course of human destiny forever. Three-thousand innocent civilians were murdered, and things would never be the same. A War On Terror was launched. Regime change was undertaken in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in recent months, perhaps as an indirect consequence, the Arab Spring has taken hold in the Middle East, bringing with it the prospect of regime change throughout the region, in response to a call by the people for freedom and jobs.

Yet still somehow there is little that has been resolved in the Middle East, even ten years since the towers of the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And there are few prospects, at this point in time, that the hopes and aspirations of the Arab Spring will bear fruit. We can see, lurking in the shadows, all sorts of shady characters who remain poised to pounce on the opportunity to assume the reins of power, and to impose on the people their lopsided versions of right and wrong.

9/11 was a defining moment in American history, but what did it mean? The Arab Spring is a defining moment in Middle East history, but where will it lead? Will the hopes and aspirations of the people be realized? Or will the War On Terror and the Arab Spring be footnotes in the annals of history; cast aside as missed opportunities to bring about real change?

In order for 9/11 and the Arab Spring to achieve the measure of meaning they deserve, we need to raise the fight on the ground, against terror and against oppression, to a higher moral plane, by giving the fight a moral clarity of purpose. We need to make sense of it all, for it to make a difference in the day to day lives of everyday people. To bring moral clarity to the confusion of our time, we must embrace a vision that makes sense, and that inspires in people a sense of hope. And then we must find the courage to give substance to the vision and make it real.

 The vision for our time is, and must be, a Vision of Hope, a vision of Peace, Prosperity and Freedom. It is a vision that makes sense of the wars that we are waging, and that inspires in us the belief that things can get better, if people of good will, people like us, choose to make it so. Positioned in the proper context, our struggles assume a greater sense of purpose. We are not fighting a “War on Terror.” We are fighting a war to realize a Vision of Hope, a vision of Peace, Prosperity and Freedom. There’s a big difference. We are not fighting to kill Gadhafi, or to execute Mubarak. We are fighting to bless our people with the dignity that comes from decent jobs and personal freedoms.

To bring justice to those who lost their lives on 9/11 and in the Arab Spring, build 100 Green Industrial Zones throughout the region, using Arab capital, along with Arab, Israeli and American knowhow. Create jobs that grow our economies, that protect the environment, and that help to weaken the hold of extremist thinking. Use state-of-the-art green technology to address the environmental issues of the region such as clean water, food production, green energy and healthcare. Show that the lives lost, and the battles waged, served a greater purpose, a purpose that inspires a sense of hope in things to come.

The tenth anniversary of 9/11 is a time to reflect and to remember. As we remember those who lost their lives in such a brutal fashion, let us also reflect on how best to do justice to the sanctity of those precious lives, by embracing a Vision of Hope, and giving substance to that vision with changes which will inspire in people a sense of hope for the future, and a belief that their struggles will not have been in vain.

Please visit 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

I’ve seen how gradually things escalated to civil war in Libya as Gaddafi hired more and more mercenaries with the rebels increasing in numbers and moving against him.

I remember how Gaddafi’s forces had superior advantage of military training and organization to the Libyan rebels and how they had managed to almost break into Benghazi if the NATO had not moved to aid the Libyan rebels there, and how it was finally able to give the Libyan freedom fighters the edge to push back Gaddafi’s forces to the West.

I remember how at times I thought that Libya would become a stalemate for quite a while and that victory wouldn’t come so soon, but now I see them celebrating all over Libya.  The freedom fighters had managed to get into Bab al-Aziziya, break down his golden statue and step on his ‘golden’ head, take his military cap and gold necklace, his gold-coated rifles and even his ‘tuk-tuk’ which he was held famous for in the Arab World.

The Green Square of Tripoli is now the Martyrs’ Square of Libya. The liberation flag has been raised on top of Bab al-Aziziya. The Libyans tore off the largest record-breaking poster of Gaddafi in the Martyrs’ Square in Tripoli. With the remaining pockets of remnants of Gaddafi’s regime, it should be too long before Libya is completely liberated from Gaddafi and his filth.

Many may wonder why Libya’s revolution had such a violent turn, but its no surprise,

Those who make a peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable – JFK

For many years, the Libyans have lived in Gaddafi’s miserable rule, watching opposition activists being executed on a yearly basis, on the day of April 7th in the Universities of al-Fateh and Garyounis in Tripoli and Benghazi respectively. They watched the Abu Saleem prison massacre in 1996 that killed almost 1,200 political prisoners. They watched assassinations done by Gaddafi and his intelligence on opposition figures living abroad.

For many years, Gaddafi has plagued Libya with his crazy policies and ideas, his flawed definition of a democracy and plundering of Libyan wealth. And ever since the Libyans rose up against Gaddafi and his oppression on February 17th and we have seen his atrocities and genocide of Libyans.

We all saw how he used anti-aircraft guns, 14.5 mm machine guns with incendiary bullets, tanks, bombers and even warships to kill the peaceful Libyan protesters, we saw how he hired mercenaries from Africa to kill Libyan men, rape their women and break into their homes.

And now he has fallen, and Libyans are celebrating Worldwide, particularly in Libya. I can certainly say that Libya’s revolution might be the most complete of all in the Arab World, for they have entirely took down the regime, and will start rebuilding their country under a new democratic regime.

But what lies next for Libya? The difficulty that Libya now faces is taking down the very last pockets of Gaddafi’s forces, and also clearing out NATO’s involvement in their policy remaking. Libya is tribal by nature and does not have civil society organizations like Egypt and Tunisia, something for the National Transitional Council to consider in the process of rebuilding the nation.

The NATO will not cease to keep its hands out of Libya, the oil investments are too lucrative for them to leave it alone. The Libyans will have to be aware of this, there’s no wrong in keeping friendly ties, but to the limit of not allowing the NATO, specifically the US to take control of things there.

The bravery and perseverance of the lions of the Sahara Desert has been an inspiration to many, they are the freedom fighters of Libya, the youth of #Feb17, the grandchildren of al-Mukhtar.

      With profound respect

            Maikel Nabil Sanad Ebrahim
            A pacifist activist and the chief of No for Compulsory Military Recruitment Movement
            and the first prisoner of conscience after the revolution
            1 August, 2011
            El-Marg general prison