13/8/2006

خذوا ديمقراطيتكم واغربوا عنا

 (رغم تحفظ حركة إبداع الشديد على انفعال الصديق شاكر الجوهري هنا ومخالفتها له الرأي إلا أننا ننشر مقالته)

شاكر الجوهري

التدخل الأميركي في الشؤون الداخلية للنظام العربي فاق كل الحدود.

في البداية وجدت احاديث الديمقراطية الأميركية طريقها إلى بعض العقول انطلاقا من قناعة ترى أن قاسما مشتركا ربما يكون قد تشكل بينها وبين الإدارة الأميركية على قاعدة ضرورة دمقرطة الأنظمة الحليفة لأميركا, بعد أن ثبت أنها أنظمة منتجة للإرهاب والإرهابيين.

الدوافع كانت متباينة, غير أن النتيجة يفترض أن تكون واحدة.

فأميركا تريد إلغاء الأسباب المنتجة للإرهاب, وهي اسباب رأت أنها كامنة في تركيبة الأنظمة. والشعوب تريد أن تستعيد حريتها من الأنظمة.

غير أن الأنظمة كانت أكثر منا خبرة بأميركا, فقايضتها: حرية الشعوب مقابل حرية الأوطان.

وتمت الصفقة..!

وثبت أن اميركا غير صادقة في موضوعة الديمقراطية والحريات العامة إلا بالقدر الذي يخدم مصالحها. وهي ضد الديمقراطية والحريات العامة حين تفرز حكومات غير منسجمة مع مصالحها.

على ذلك مثالين بارزين:

الأول: افرازات الديمقرطية الأميركية في العراق, حيث اغلقت الباب مقدما في وجه القوى المعارضة لأميركا, وحالت دونها وخوض الإنتخابات, فأفرزت هذه الإنتخابات حكومة على شاكلة الإحتلال, ومجلس الحكم الذي شكله بريمر في البدايات.

الثاني: رفض اميركا لنتائج الديمقراطية الفلسطينية.. وها هي كما أصرت على تواصل اطلاق النار ضد شعب لبنان, أصرت كذلك على تواصل اطلاق النار ضد الشعب الفلسطيني في قطاع غزة.

وفي الحالتين, المطلوب الأميركي تثوير الحاضنة الشعبية ضد حزب الله وحركة "حماس".

ديمقراطية اميركا ثبت أنها مثل الأصنام التي كان يصنعها البعض من التمر. يقومون بالتهامها بعد أن يصلوا لها.

في بعض الحالات كانت العرب في الجاهلية حين لا تجد حجرا, تبول على الرمل, وتصنع منه إلها تعبده..!!

لكن اميركا لم تقف عن هذا الحد من التدخل في شؤوننا, فهي وبعد أن تراجعت عمليا عن المطالبة بالديمقراطية نيابة عنا, قررت أن تختار لنا من يحكمنا..!!!

الممثلون الأميركيون باتوا يسألون شخصيات عامة في هذا البلد أو ذاك: من تفضلون رئيسا لدولتكم.. فلان أم علان..؟!

من قال لأميركا أن شعوبنا تقبل هذا التدخل الفظ في أخص خصوصياتنا..؟!

من قال لأميركا أن شعوبنا تقبل أن تحدد لها شكل ومضمون نظام الحكم, واشخاصه..؟!

من قال لأميركا أننا نقبل أن تحل اميركا نفسها ومصالحها محل ارادة شعوبنا في الخيار الحر.

أيها الأميركيون.. خذوا ديمقراطيتكم وحرياتكم, وكل بضاعتكم الفاسدة, وحلوا عن سمانا.

قالتها شعوبنا لكم منذ زمن, وها نحن نكررها على اسماعكم.

«نيوستيتسمان»: بلير كان على علم بخطة إسرائيل قبل خطف الجنديين وأوفد ليفي إلى تل أبيب لبحثها

لندن - من إلياس نصرالله: يواجه رئيس الوزراء البريطاني توني بلير، للمرة الاولى، منذ شن إسرائيل حربها على لبنان، اتهاماً خطيراً بأنه كان على علم مسبق بأن الدولة العبرية تنوي تدمير القرى في جنوب لبنان قبل خطف «حزب الله»، للجنديين من أجل القضاء على قواعد الحزب وأنه لم يفعل شيئاً لوقف هذه المجزرة، وهو اتهام يحظى بأهمية كبيرة كونه صدر هذه المرة، ليس عن المعارضين لبلير أو المعادين له، بل من داخل حزب العمال الحاكم الذي يتربع بلير على كرسي القيادة فيه منذ نحو عشر سنوات.
وكتبت أسبوعية «نيوستيتسمان»، وهي المجلة النظرية التابعة لحزب العمال والتي كثيراً ما توصف بأنها يسارية كونها تلتزم خط الحزب الرسمي المدافع عن حقوق الطبقة العاملة، أن رئيس الوزراء الإسرائيلي إيهود أولمرت أبلغ الرئيس جورج بوش قبل الحرب نيته توجيه ضربة قاضية للحزب وأن الخطة تتضمن «تدمير» القرى في جنوب لبنان، وأضافت أن الرئيس الاميركي أبلغ بلير هذه الخطة حالاً بعد إطلاع أولمرت عليها.
وتابعت المجلة: «إذن بلير كان يعلم, وهذا يكشف عن زيف الجدل الذي دار خلال الأسبوع الماضي حول الدعوة لوقف إطلاق النار», وأضافت ان «المسألة لم تقتصر فقط على غض الطرف والتقصير في وقف المذبحة، بل تعدت ذلك إلى تقديم مساعدة فعالة» لتنفيذها.
من جهتها، نقل الموقع الإلكتروني لصحيفة «ديلي ميل» عن مصدر من داخل الحكومة، أن إسرائيل أطلعت واشنطن بالفعل على الخطة وأنه تم إبلاغ لندن بالأمر, ونقلت عن عدد من النواب في مجلس العموم أن بلير كان ضالعاً في الخطة وأنه أوفد مبعوثه الخاص إلى الشرق الأوسط اللورد ليفي للقاء المسؤولين الإسرائيليين، وأن ليفي أجرى عشرات اللقاءات مع الوزراء الإسرائيليين لبحث الخطة قبل شن الحرب بكثير، رغم المشاكل التي كانت تحيط بعلاقة بلير باللورد على الساحة الداخلية وتورطهما في فضيحة منح الألقاب الرسمية «لورد وسير» للمتبرعين لحزب العمال التي أدت إلى اعتقال ليفي وإخضاعه للتحقيق من جانب الشرطة.

وأشار النواب إلى أن العدد الكبير من الزيارات التي قام بها ليفي، لإسرائيل خلال يونيو ويوليو الماضيين، هما أكبر دليل على العلاقة الحميمة وغير العادية بين تل أبيب ولندن في وقت كانت الأولى تعدّ العدة لشن الحرب.
وأوردت «ديلي ميل» على لسان جون بايك، أحد كبار المستشارين العسكريين للحكومة الأميركية: «تسألون ما إذا أعطت الولايات المتحدة إسرائيل الضوء الأخضر لمهاجمة حزب الله وإبعاد قواته من جنوب لبنان؟ نعم بالطبع فعلت ذلك», وقال أن هناك على حد علمه اتفاق بين واشنطن وتل أبيب على توجيه إسرائيل ضربة عسكرية للمفاعل الذري الإيراني، «ربما السنة المقبلة, ونظراً لكونه من المؤكد أن إيران في حال ضرب مفاعلها النووي ستطلب من حزب الله أن يبدأ بقصف إسرائيل، تقرر ضرب حزب الله قبل توجيه الضربة للمفاعل الإيراني».
ويأتي اتهام بلير بعلمه المسبق بخطة الحرب على لبنان تتويجاً لحملة واسعة ضد الموقف المؤيد لإسرائيل وخروج عدد من الوزراء والديبلوماسيين وغيرهم من المسؤولين علناً ضده, ووصف السير رودريك بريثويت، وهو من أبرز السفراء البريطانيين السابقين، الضرر الذي أحدثه موقف بلير من الحرب على لبنان بالضرر الهائل الذي لحق ببريطانيا ومصالحها في العالم العربي عقب مشاركتها في حرب السويس على مصر وأدت إلى خروجها لاحقاً من منطقة الخليج وعدن.
وسارع مكتب رئيس الوزراء إلى نفي علمه بتفاصيل الخبر الذي أوردته «نيوستيتسمان»، غير أن زعيم الحزب الليبرالي الديموقراطي السير منزيس كامبل، قال: «إذا صحّ هذا الاتهام فأنه سيمس صميم مصداقية رئيس الوزراء وشرعية حكومته, لأن أسئلة كثيرة ستثار حول عدم مصارحته البرلمان بهذا الأمر»,
ولوحظ أن بلير حاول في تصريح له صباح أمس، الدفاع عن نفسه والتأكيد أنه «لم يعط الضوء الأخضر» لإسرائيل لمواصلة حربها، معترفاً بالخلافات الداخلية في مجلس الوزراء حول الموقف من الحرب على لبنان.

Thousands of Shi'ites march in Baghdad

Wed Aug 2, 2006 9:19 AM BST

By Omar al-Ibadi and Michael Georgy

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Thousands of Shi'ite civilians charged with guarding neighbourhoods in Iraq marched through Baghdad on Wednesday in a show of force likely to stir passions in a country ravaged by sectarian violence.

Young men in civilian uniforms and headbands, all members of what is known as the popular committees, chanted as a speaker called on them to crush "terrorists" and loyalists of ousted President Saddam Hussein leading a Sunni Arab insurgency against the Shi'ite-led government.

"Step on terrorism," he said.

The crowd included members of the Badr Organisation, one of the armed Shi'ite groups Sunni Arabs accuse of running militia death squads, a charge they deny.

"We have to benefit from this wide popular base and the state and Iraqi people should form these

popular regional committees from the best of our young men to face terrorism," Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, one of Iraq's most power Shi'ite leaders, told a crowd.

"They will defend people of districts; Sunnis, Shi'ites, Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen. They do not differentiate between anybody. They will provide support for the official security apparatus."

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, whose reconciliation plan has failed to ease sectarian bloodshed, has promised to disband militias that many fear will push the country to civil war.

"The first enemy is the Baathist Saddam loyalists and their henchmen the Islamic extremists," said Hakim.

Officially, the event was held to mark the third anniversary of the death of Hakim's brother, Ayatollah Muhammad Baqr al-Hakim, in a bombing in the southern city of Najaf.

But the speeches also covered some of the most explosive issues in Iraq, such as federalism, which is opposed by Sunnis who fear it will leave them deprived of oil in resource-poor central Iraq.

"We believe that implementation of a federal system in Iraq will achieve justice and rebuild Iraq and guarantee the unity of the Iraqi people and land," said Hakim.

Hours before he spoke, three roadside bombs exploded in central Baghdad near a group of labourers seeking work, killing three people and wounding nine, police sources said.

In Baquba, north of Baghdad, gunmen killed the chief of the traffic police, Ahmed Abdel Hussein, and one of his bodyguards.

The violence came a day after bombings and shootings killed up to 61 people across Iraq, including at least 26 soldiers.

Israel, terrorism and the laws of war

By IRWIN COTLER

ouise Arbour’s comments on international law as it applies to Israel’s military actions in Lebanon are as superficial as they are simplistic as a matter of law, and uninformed and misleading in their appreciation of and application to the facts.

First, it is a basic postulate of constitutional law that a government’s first duty – be it in Canada or in Israel – is the protection of its citizens. Second, and not unrelated, international law mandates the right, if not the duty, of self-defence against aggression, and the reasonable use of military force for that protective purpose, whether in response to an armed attack from another state or a terrorist act.

In the case at hand, the triggers for the present hostilities include the abduction of Israeli soldiers and the intentional and unprovoked rocket and missile bombardment across international boundaries of Israeli cities, towns and villages by Hezbollah and Hamas. The root cause is the unwillingness of these terrorist entities and their supporters, like Iran, to recognize the legitimacy of Israel within any boundaries. By their own avowed declarations, they are sworn to the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews wherever they may be – aided and abetted by their sponsors, Iran and Syria.

Accordingly, the declarations of Arbour, the United Nations’ high commissioner for human rights and a former Canadian Supreme Court justice, to the effect that international law “prohibits the bombardment of sites with military significance but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians” is wrong as a statement of international law, and dangerously wrong in the application of that alleged international law principle to the facts at hand.

First, it is legitimate under international law to attack military targets located in cities, as long as every effort is made to reduce civilian casualties. Second, targets located in cities – including even apartment buildings, bridges and infrastructure – are legitimate military targets if they become the infrastructure from which war is waged, whether they are used to store and launch rockets and missiles, or to house and shield the terrorists themselves, or, as in the case of bridges, to transport both the terrorists and their weapons.

Indeed, Arbour’s statement of the law is not only simplistic as a matter of law, but

dangerously so in this instance. For if Israel is to be prohibited from exercising its right of self-defence to counter the indiscriminate bombardment of its citizens, the whole of Israel becomes a “sitting duck” for Hezbollah’s and Hamas’ international criminality. It would transform international law – and Israel’s constitution or that of any democracy– into a suicide pact, with Hamas and Hezbollah able to commit war crimes with impunity.

Fortunately, the basic principles of international treaty and customary law respecting the reasonable use of force to repel aggression make it clear that the intentional co-mingling of combatants with civilians – or the embedding of combatants in civilian areas such that an attack on combatants would necessarily entail an excessively large number of casualties – is a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law. Hezbollah and Hamas are in violation of the laws of war when they launch missiles and rockets from villages and homes in order to immunize themselves from Israeli reprisals.

Accordingly, Hezbollah and Hamas are legally and morally responsible for any civilian casualty that results from any Israeli bombardment of areas containing missiles, rockets or the terrorists themselves, as long as the Israeli intention is for the purpose of protecting its civilians and Israel makes every effort to limit the civilian casualties in its response.

Admittedly, the right of self-defence in the response of Israel (or any other democracy) to such acts of aggression is not unlimited. The principle of “reasonableness” and “proportionality” in response still applies even when terrorist organizations like Hezbollah intentionally and indiscriminately target Israeli civilians and commit the war crime of using their own civilians as human shields. But then the test of “proportionality” for Israel (or any other democracy) – and the question of whether there has been excessive injury to civilians – must be assessed in the context of the intention and actions of both the aggressor and the responding state, including:

• The intentional and unprovoked acts of war across international boundaries by the terrorist organization to begin with;

• The use by the terrorist organizations of civilians as human shields to immunize themselves from an Israeli response;

• The avowed and publicly declared intention to destroy a state (Israel) and kill as many of its citizens as possible;

• The support for these terrorist organizations by states like Iran, which help recruit, train, supply, finance, harbour and instigate the terrorist movements, and which have their own genocidal ideology;

• The fact that terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah act as proxies or surrogates to the strategic objectives of Syria and Iran and which, in the case of Iran, include not only “wiping Israel off the map” but changing the map of the Middle-East itself;

• The intended and anticipated moral and strategic gains for Israel, which include better

protecting from rocket and missile attacks more than two million Israelis – and with Tel Aviv in central Israel, protecting the country’s entire population of seven million – must also be factored into any judgments about the “proportionality” of Israel’s operations against Hezbollah.

It is painful and tragic to see hundreds of thousands of civilians fleeing the war zone; and the death of any innocent, Israeli, Palestinian or Lebanese, is a tragedy. But it must never be forgotten that there would have been no terrorist Hezbollah if UN Security Council Resolution 1559 had been complied with and enforced. There would have been no need for an Israeli response and no civilian casualties on any side if there had been no unprovoked act of aggression across international boundaries by both Hezbollah and Hamas to begin with. There would have been no Hezbollah capacity for an indiscriminate missile and rocket bombardment of the Israeli civilian population were it not for the Iranian and Syrian supply of some 15,000 of these deadly missiles and rockets to Hezbollah alone. There would have been nowhere near the number of Palestinian and Lebanese civilian casualties if Hamas and Hezbollah were not embedding themselves in the civilian population and using the civilians as human shields. And, as a matter of fundamental principle, there should no moral equivalence between the terrorist intention to maximize civilian casualties and the Israeli intention to minimize civilian casualties.

This discourse about the laws of war may, in the light of individual tragedies and civilian deaths, appear to be insufficiently sensitive to the human tragedies involved. Indeed, the “laws of war” may appear to be a contradiction in terms. But the very notion of laws of war and the theory of just wars presuppose that wars will still be fought, but that they must be fought justly.

In the end, Hamas and Hezbollah launched an unprovoked act of war against Israel. Israel had no choice but to respond to protect its citizens. The question is whether that response is just, and the answer has to be one rendered with full appreciation of the principles of international law and the facts and circumstances of the present conflict.

Irwin Cotler is the member of Parliament for Mount Royal and professor of law (on leave) at McGill University.

Kuwaitis slam US' 'New Middle East'

By Ahmad Al-Khaled
KUWAIT: More than 500 people rallied on Shara Sahafa (Journalism Street) late yesterday in support of Lebanese endurance against Israeli aggression and denounced the US' vision of a "New Middle East'. Frequent chants of "Death to America!", "America the Great Satan! and "Death to Israel!" could be heard. "We tell the American and British ambassadors in Kuwait that they are unwanted and unwelcome in our diwaniyas and homes, especially in the month of Ramadan," a speaker told the crowd to chants of "We are Hezbollah" and "Down, Down USA".
Protestors gathered 3000 signatures of Kuwaiti citizens supporting an immediate ceasefire and an end to Israeli hostilities in Lebanon, which was sent to all countries that are permanent members of the UN Security Council and several international humanitarian agencies. "What is happening in Lebanon is not a crime - it is crimes against humanity," Ayad Al-Mena, a Kuwaiti journalist told the crowd. "Close the US Embassy" signs hung amid coffins marked "UN" and "Arab League", signifying protestors' lack of confidence in both agencies to accomplish anything in the current Mideast conflict. "It is a mistake to call this war an Israeli war as it is an Israeli-American war," Ahmed Al-Diyan, a Kuwaiti constitutional scholar and writer said. "The UN is a division of the US State Department," he added.
All speakers at the rally slammed US policy in the region with Kuwaiti journalist Mustafa Behbahani saying: "The American Zionist intention is the control of the region and anyone who does not submit gets eliminated." Behbahani called on the National Assembly to enact laws that criminalise relations with Israel. Kuwaiti journalist and head of the political office of the Salafist Movement (a Sunni political party) Fahaid Al-Heliem said: "This is a crusade against Islam and Muslims! When the two towers fell, all the values of US democracy fell!"
"The US wants Islamic nations to submit - their only obstacle is Islamic resistance which they want to remove. They want to destroy the idea of resistance. Support the resistance - if they are defeated it is a defeat for all of us. Support them with your words, money and everything you can," Al-Mena implored. "They (the US) want to destroy even the idea of resistance," Al-Diyan chorused. Referring to the US' self-proclaimed "New Middle East" he said: "This New Middle East will be made up of small countries built on ethnicity and sectarianism and have no will." "US support for Israel is fuelling more extremism and hatred for the US," Al-Mena added.
Shiite religious cleric Abdullah Al-Najada denounced the local press. "There are (US and Israeli) agents in the free press," he charged. The mostly Shiite crowd responded with chants of "Death to Traitors!", "Death to Agents!" and "Death to Mercenaries!" "There are no Sunnis, there are no Shiites - only Muslim," Salafist Al-Heliem said. "And with all our fights with Israel, we have only had Arab Nationalism (which is dead) - once we ousted Islam, we lost everything," he added, calling on the free Kuwaiti press to support Lebanon. The Kuwaiti Journalist Association also urged the press yesterday to expose Israeli atrocities and crimes.

God save Nasrallah...say Kuwait's children

By Rania El Gamal
Staff Writer
KUWAIT: They were dressed in tee-shirts with slogans such as 'Death to Israel...Death to America'. Some were holding Lebanese flags and yellow balloons with Hassan Nasrallah's photo on them. Others were wearing yellow bandanas with 'All of us are Hezbullah' printed on them. These were the scenes as Kuwaiti children held their first peaceful demonstration yesterday, in front of the offices of local newspapers in Shuwaikh.
About 200 protestors-mainly children-gathered yesterday in the afternoon in spite of the heat to assert their support for the children and women of Lebanon, especially after the Israeli raid on the southern Lebanese village of Qana on Sunday, that killed at least 54 civilians, mostly children.
"This demonstration is mainly for the Kuwaiti children as well as the Lebanese children living in Kuwait. We dedicate it to Lebanon," said Yaoub Dashti, spokesperson for the group 'Kuwaitis Supporting Endurance'.
"This peaceful gathering is only for children and women and we chose this place [in front of the local newspapers] because newspapers will deliver the message," he said.
Speaking to the Kuwait Times, Dashti said that there would be a workshop later on where kids could paint their own pictures about Lebanon and the Israeli aggression and then present them at the demonstration. Dashti also said that their organisation was collecting and sending donations to Lebanon through the Kuwait Red Crescent.
"The speakers [in this demonstration] will be children, talking to the audience about what is happening in Lebanon and Occupied Palestine," he added.
The age of the children who attended yesterday's protest varied from 4 to 15. This poses the question: Were these children really aware of the reasons why they were there?

Lebanese premier sandwiched between Israel, Syria America